The  University  of  Oklahoma 

QUARTERLY  BULLETIN 

THE  UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  INFORMATION  AND  WELFARE 


The  Preferoj^'J^  Ballot 


PUBLISHED  QUARTERLY  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY 
NORMAN,  OKLAHOMA. 


-t 


■r._- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/preferentialballOOuniv 


FOREWORD 


! 


^ZAlfci 

OV  h\ 


S 1811 


J 

i 

z 


The  literature  of  the  Preferential  Ballot  is  still  very  limited, 
and  most  that  has  been  published  on  it  favors  the  affirmative. 
The  published  discussion  is  so  limited  that  we  have  had  to  re¬ 
sort  to  private  letters  and  conversations  for  most  of  the  material 
in  this  bulletin.  Three  of  the  letters  received  are  reprinted.  On 
the  affirmative  side  of  the  question  we  refer  those  interested  to 
a  pamphlet  written  by  Prof.  C.  G.  Hoag,  Haverford,  Pa.,  and 
reprinted  as  a  U.  S.  Senate  Document  on  motion  of  Senator 
Robt.  L.  Owen,  from  whom  it  may  be  obtained. 

As  in  former  bulletins,  the  editors  assume  no  responsibility 
for  the  soundness  of  the  arguments  adduced.  Those  given  are 
arguments  which  are  actually  used.  The  student  needs  the  dis¬ 
cipline  of  testing  arguments  and  detecting  fallacies.  The  effort 
is  made  to  so  word  the  question  that  the  arguments  on  both 
sides  will  be  as  nearly  equal  as  possible.  While  our  constant 
aim  is  to  so  balance  the  arguments  that  both  sides  have  an  equal 
chance  to  win,  it  is  evidently  not  always  possible  to  realize  this 
aim.  The  editors  cannot  of  course  create  the  arguments;  they 
can  only  arrange  such  as  they  find  with  such  skill  as  they  may 
command. 

Notwithstanding  a  wide  correspondence  and  much  inquiry 
there  are  doubtless  many  excellent  arguments  which  the  editors 
failed  to  get.  After  the  subject  has  been  more  fully  discussed 
in  the  public  prints  a  new  edition  will  be  published.  The  ob¬ 
vious  timeliness  of  the  discussion  will  justify  the  present  early 
publication. 


QUESTION 

Resolved:  That  the  Preferential  Ballot  should  be 
adopted  in  the  several  states. 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT 


INTRODUCTION 


The  voter  often  finds  it  difficult  to  decide  between  two  or 
more  candidates  whose  qualifications  seem  about  equal.  Per¬ 
sonal  relations  to  the  candidates  may  add  to  his  perplexity. 
When  he  votes  for  one  he  votes  against  all  the  rest  equally. 
Even  if  his  vote  truly  represented  his  first  choice  it  is  evident 
that  it  does  not  at  all  indicate  his  attitude  towards  the  other 
candidates.  Among  them  he  may  have  very  decided  preferences 
which  the  present  single  ballot  does  not  enable  him  to  express. 
If  we  are  to  be  governed  by  the  ballot,  it  is  evident  that  the 
voter  should  be  able  to  express  by  it  as  much  as  possible  of  his 
wishes  and  decisions.  All  admit  this;  the  only  difference  is  as 
to  the  method  of  securing  this  result.  The  method  proposed 
in  the  present  discussion  is  The  Preferential  Ballot. 

WHAT  IS  THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT? 

Its  aim  is  to  enable  the  voter  to  indicate  as  fully  as  possible 
his  preferences  among  all  the  candidates.  It  does  this  by  pro¬ 
viding  that  the  voter  may  indicate  not  only  his  first  choice  as 
at  present  but  also  his  second  and  other  choices.  Where  all 
voters  are  able  to  write,  the  easiest  way  to  express  the  different 
choices  is  to  write  the  figure  “1”  after  the  first  choice,  the  figure 
“2”  after  the  second  choice,  etc.  Another  method  is  to  have  a 
separate  column  for  each  choice;  the  first  column  for  the  first 
choice,  the  second  column  for  the  second  choice,  etc.  The 
voter  places  an  “X”  opposite  the  name  and  in  the  proper  column 
to  indicate  his  different  choices. 

In  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  only  two  choices  are  permit¬ 
ted,  so  only  two  columns  are  needed.  When  a  third  choice  is 
permitted,  three  columns  would  be  used.  In  many  places  where 
the  preferential  ballot  is  used  the  first  two  columns  indicate  the 
first  and  second  choices,  but  the  third  column  is  used  for  third 
“and  other”  choices.  That  is,  he  may  use  the  third  column  to 
indicate  his  third  choice,  or  he  may  use  it  to  indicate  which  ones 


Preferential  Ballot  5 

of  the  remaining  candidates  he  prefers.  This  enables  him  not 
only  to  vote  for  his  first  and  second  choices  but  to  vote  against 
those  he  does  not  mark  in  the  third  column.  This  gives  him 
power  to  express  his  attitude  towards  every  candidate  on  the 
ballot. 

Experience  seems  to  prove  that  the  use  of  numerals  to  ex¬ 
press  the  different  choices  is  attended  by  fewer  mistakes  than 
the  use  of  columns;  it  is  purely  a  matter  of  expediency  as  there 
is  no  difference  whatever  in  the  principles  involved.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  is  an  illustration  of  the  first  form: 


Candidate  Choice 

John  Smith _ 3 


Jack  Robinson - 

Harry  Jones _ 2 

Tom  Brown _ 1 

Dick  Johnson _ 

Ben  Davis _ 4 

Concerning  Robinson  and  Johnson  no  preference  is  expressed. 

The  following  illustrates  the  column  plan  of  expressing  the 
same  vote: 


Candidate 

1st  Choice 

2nd  Choice 

3rd  or  Other 

1 

| 

Choices 

John  Smith 

X 

l 

Jack  Robinson 

Harry  Jones 

X 

Tom  Brown 

l 

X 

1 

Dick  Johnson 

l 

Ben  Davis 

X 

This  ballot  means  that  the  voter’s  first  choice  is  Tom  Brown 
and  his  second  Harry  Jones,  and  of  the  remaining  candidates  he 
would  prefer  John  Smith  or  Ben  Davis  to  the  others. 


II.  COUNTING  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOTS. 

All  the  methods  which  have  been  used  may  be  classed  under 


6  University  of  Oklahoma 

three  heads:  The  Ware  system,  the  Bucklin  system,  and  the 
Nanson  system. 

1.  The  Ware  System. 

In  this  system  the  first  choices  are  counted  first,  and  if  any 
candidate  receives  a  majority  of  the  first  choice  votes,  he  is  de¬ 
clared  elected,  and  no  attention  is  paid  to  the  other  choices;  the 
election  is  exactly  as  it  is  now.  But  if  no  one  has  a  majority  the 
candidate  having  the  lowest  number  of  first  choices  is  dropped 
and  the  second  choices  of  those  who  voted  for  him  are  counted 
instead  of  their  first  choices.  After  the  second  count  the  candi¬ 
date  then  having  the  lowest  vote  is  dropped  and  the  third 
choices  of  all  who  voted  for  him  are  counted  in  the  third  count. 
This  process  may  be  continued  as  far  as  choices  are  indicated, 
but  usually  the  one  having  the  largest  plurality  in  the  third  count 
is  declared  elected,  as  it  is  generally  unnecessary  to  carry  the 
process  farther. 

The  chief  objection  urged  against  the  Ware  system  of  count¬ 
ing  is  the  dropping  of  the  lowest  first  choice  candidate  at  the 
end  of  the  first  count.  It  often  happens  that  the  one  having  the 
lowest  number  of  first  choices  has  the  highest  number  of  sec¬ 
ond  choices,  and  that  usually  means  the  best  candidate.  To 
remedy  this  is  the'-  chief  object  of  the  next  system. 

2.  The  Bucklin  System. 

This  differs  from  the  Ware  system  only  in  that  no  candidates 
are  dropped;  all  stay  in  the  count  to  the  end.  If  no  one  has  a 
majority  in  the  first  count,  then  the  second  choices  are  added 
to  the  first;  if  any  candidate  has  a  majority  he  is  declared  elect¬ 
ed;  but  if  not  then  the  third,  choices  are  also  added  in,  and  so  on 
to  the  last  choice.  If  but  three,  choices  are  given  there  are  three 
counts;  if  there  is  no  majority  on  the  last  count  the  one  having 
the  largest  vote  is  declared  elected. 

The  chief  objection  to  this  is  that  first  choices  do  not  count 
any  more  than  second  or  lower  choices.  This  is  not  so  much  a 
defect  as  a  failure  to  reach  perfection.  But  it  has  been  remedied 
by  the  proposal  of  Prof.  E.  J.  Nanson  of  the  University  of  Mel¬ 
bourne,  Australia. 

3.  The  Nanson  System. 

In  this  system  numerals  are  used  instead  of  columns.  Candi¬ 
dates  are  ranked  in  order  of  their  preference  by  the  voter  by 
placing  1  after  the  first  choice,  2  after  the  second  choice, 
3  after  the  third  choice,  etc.  If  the  voter  fails  to  indicate  his 
choic.e  as  to  the  entire  list  of  candidates,  each  of  the  remaining 


7 


Preferential  Ballot 

■candidates  is  given  the  average  of  the  choices  not  indicated. 
For  example,  if  there  are  seven  candidates  and  the  voter  indi¬ 
cates  only  four  choices,  each  of  the  remaining  three  would  be 
marked  6,  the  average  of  5,  6,  and  7. 

Since  1  indicates  the  first  choice,  in  the  sum  of  the  ranks  the 
smaller  total  indicates  the  higher  preference.  This  method  has 
been  in  use  for  a  long  time  in  judging  oratorical  contests  and 
debates. 

This  method  can  be  made  more  accurate  by  the  additions  of 
the  Nanson  system,  by  which  after  the  ranks  have  been  added 
their  average  is  found  by  adding  the  totals  and  dividing  by  the 
number  of  candidates.  Then  all  the  candidates  having  a  total 
larger  than  this  average  are  dropped  because  their  election  is 
absolutely  impossible.  The  object  of  the  Nanson  procedure  is 
to  insure  that  the  one  finally  declared  elected  is  preferred  to 
every  other  candidate  comparing  them  two  by  two.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  rules  are  a  good  summary  of  the  system: 

Rules  for  Counting,  Nanson  System. 

1.  The  ballots  must  be  transferred  to  a  prepared  sheet,  copy¬ 
ing  only  the  exact  figures  made  by  the  voter. 

2.  The  candidates  not  marked  by  the  voter  must  each  be 
given  the  average  of  the  ranks  unmarked. 

3.  All  the  figures  of  each  candidate  indicating  the  ranks 
given  him  by  the  voters  are  then  added,  and  the  average  rank 
of  all  the  candidates  obtained. 

4.  Exclude  each  candidate  whose  rank  equals  or  exceeds 
this  average. 

5.  If  only  one  remains  he  is  elected. 

6.  If  two  remain  the  one  is  elected  who  was  preferred  by 

the  greater  number  of  voters. 

7.  If  three  or  more  remain,  repeat  the  processes  of  3  and  4 
until  only  one  or  two  remain  and  then  apply  5  or  6. 

III.  HISTORY. 

\The  Preferential  Ballot  in  some  form  has  been  studied  for 
several  hundred  years  and  has  received  the  attention  of  many 
eminent  mathematicians. 

The  Ware  system  is  known  in  England  as  the  “alternative 
vote,”  and  in  Australia  as  the  “preferential  vote.”  The  present 
form  was  suggested  by  Prof.  W.  R.  Ware  of  Harvard  Univer¬ 
sity.  The  use  of  columns  for  the  choices  was  suggested  by  Mr. 

D.  S.  Remsen  of  New  York.  This  continues  the  use  of  the  “X” 


8 


University  of  Oklahoma 

stamp  with  which  voters  are  already  familiar  and  permits  the 
counting  to  be  done  at  the  voting  precincts  as  at  present.  This 
system  is  used  in  the  primary  elections  of  Wisconsin  and  Minne¬ 
sota,  but  limited  to  two  choices. 

The  Bucklin  system  was  first  proposed  by  a  Frenchman, 
Condorcet,  in  1793.  Its  present  form  is  chiefly  due  to  the  Hon. 
James  W.  Bucklin,  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  where  it  was  adopted 
in  1909.  It  is  also  used  in  Spokane,  Wash.;  Denver,  Colo.;  Port¬ 
land,  Ore.;  Cleveland,  O.;  North  Dakota,  etc.  It  aims  to  be 
practical  rather  than  theoretical;  it  is  easily  voted  and  easily 
counted. 

The  Nanson  system  shows  the  almost  marvellous  possibili¬ 
ties  of  preferential  voting  as  a  means  of  ascertaining  the  real 
will  of  the  people. 

Some  form  of  preferential  ballot  has  also  been  introduced  in 
Western  Australia,  Tasmania,  Colorado  Springs,  Pueblo,  Fort 
Collings,  Colo.,  Nashua,  N.  H.,  La  Grande,  Ore.,  New  Iberia, 
La.  It  is  being  rapidly  introduced  into  cities. 

Results  of  the  First  Trial  of  the  Bucklin  System.f 

The  first  trial  was  in  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  Nov.  2nd,  1909. 
A  new  charter  had  just  been  adopted  and  the  two  local  parties 
were  Pro-charter  and  Anti-charter;  the  former  about  twice  as 
large  as  the  latter.  There  were  four  pro-charter  candidates  and 
two  anti-charter.  The  total  number  of  votes  was  1,847,  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  which  was  924,  and  a  majority  of  first  choices  was  900. 
The  following  was  the  entire  vote: 


Candidates  First 

Second 

Other 

Combined 

Combined 

Choices 

Choices 

Choices 

1st  and  2nd 

1st,  2nd,  3rd 

D.  W.  Aupperle  465 

143 

145 

608 

753 

*W.  H.  Bannister  603 

93* ** 

43** 

696 

739 

N.  A.  Lough  99 

231 

328 

330 

658 

*E.  B.  Lutes  41 

214** 

88** 

155 

243 

E.  M.  Slocomb  229 

357 

326 

586 

912 

Thomas  M.  Todd  362 

293 

396 

655 

1051 

1799  1231  1326 


*Anti-charter  candidates.  The  others  were  pro-charter. 
fSee  article  by  Prof.  L.  J.  Johnson,  National  Municipal  Re¬ 
view,  Jan.,  1914. 

**The  light  anti-charter  vote  in  the  second  and  third  columns 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  anti-charter  voters  concentrated  on 


Preferential  Ballot  9 

Under  our  present  system,  Bannister  would  have  been  elect¬ 
ed  though  two-thirds  of  the  voters  were  opposed  to  him.  Ex¬ 
amination  of  the  fourth  column  shows  that  under  the  system 
adopted  by  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  Bannister  would  still  have 
been  elected  by  the  simple  device,  of  concentrating  the  anti¬ 
charter,  and  dividing  the  pro-charter  vote.  But  since  the  anti¬ 
charter  voters  concentrated  on  Bannister  as  first  choice  they  had 
but  few  votes  left  for  second  and  other  choices.  Examination  of 
the  fifth  column  shows  that  Bannister  came  out  fourth  in  the 
final  count, — which  result  is  consistent  with  the  facts.  The  elec¬ 
tion  of  Bannister  would  evidently  have  made  the  entire  election 
a  farce,  but  no  possible  management  could  have  elected  him 
tinder  a  preferential  ballot. 

It  is  clear  that  although  the  anti-charter  vote  was  only  about 
one-third  of  the  total,  all  that  was  needed  to  elect  the  anti-char¬ 
ter  candidate  was  to  concentrate  the  anti-charter  vote  as  much 
as  possible,  and  see  to  it  that  enough  pro-charter  candidates  were 
brought  out  t-o  divide  the  vote  sufficiently. 

As  Bannister  got  all  but  41  of  the  anti-charter  votes  it  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  52  of  the  93  second  choice  votes  for  him  must  have  been 
cast  by  pro-charter  voters,  but  still  he  was  far  from  winning. 
While  under  the  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  plan  Bannister  could 
not  have  been  elected  without  these  52  pro-charter  votes,  it  is 
■evident  that  the  addition  of  the  third  column  of  “other”  choices 
greatly  safe-guards  the  will  of  the  majority  for  with  it  added 
Bannister’s  election  is  rendered  practically  impossible.  That 
is,  it  is  practically  impossible  for  a  small  minority  to  impose  its 
will  upon  the  majority. 

The  preferential  ballot  has  never  been  used  except  in  pri¬ 
mary  elections  and  in  elections  where  the  primary  and  final 
elections  are  combined  in  one.  The  preferential  ballot  form 
could  be  used  in  a  final  election  after  nominations  had  been 
made,  but  the  results  would  be  exactly  the  same  as  now.  For 
if  there  were  but  one  candidate  on  a  democratic  voter’s  ticket, 
for  example,  there  would  be  no  preference  and  he  would  vote 
his  first  and  only  choice.  Of  course  no  voter  would  select  his 
second  and  third  choices  from  other  party  tickets  for  that  would 
be  voting  against  his  own  party  ticket.  If  there  are  several 
names,  a  preferential  ballot  gives  the  voter  opportunity  to  ex- 

Bannister.  The  total  vote  of  Bannister  and  Lut,es  was  644, — the 
total  anti-charter  vote. 


10 


University  of  Oklahoma 

press  his  preferences  among  them  if  he  wishes,  but  of  course 
he  is  not  compelled  to. 

In  the  Grand  Junction  election  given  below,  1847  votes  were 
cast.  There  were  1799  first  choices  and  only  1231  second  choices. 
From  this  it  appears  that  48  did  not  express  their  first  choice,, 
and  of  those  who  did  568  did  not  indicate  their  second  choice. 
But  the  fact  that  about  one-third  of  the  voters  did  not  use  their 
privilege  did  not  prevent  'the  admirable  result.  That  some  of 
the  voters  do  not  use  their  privilege  of  choices  does  not  in  the 
least  impair  the  work  of  those  who  do.  All  the  cities  which 
have  adopted  the  preferential  ballot  have  but  one  election,  and  as 
the  public  become  accustomed  to  it,  the  same  policy  would  doubt¬ 
less  become  universal.  Of  course  in  a  combined  election  it  would 
be  necessary  for  the  voter  to  indicate  his  choice  of  parties  as 
well  as  of  candidates;  this  could  easily  be  done  as  in  Belgium.  In 
voting  for  amendments  there  could  of  course  be  but  two  choices 
expressed  by  “yes”  or  “no.” 

While  the  preferential  ballot  does  not  require  or  presuppose 
any  particular  method  of  nomination  or  getting  names  on  the 
official  ballot,  the  usual  custom  is  to  nominate  by  petition.  The 
candidate  has  only  to  file  a  petition  signed  by  the  required  num¬ 
ber  of  voters  who  have  not  signed  a  petition  for  any  other  can¬ 
didate  for  the  same  office.  Any  one  can  run  when  a  sufficient 
number  of  his  fellow  citizens  thus  endorse  his  candidacy.  The 
same  principle  is  now  followed  in  initiating  bills. 


IV.  LETTERS. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  Feb.  18,  1914. 

Profesor  J.  W.  Scroggs, 

University  of  Oklahoma, 

Norman,  Okla. 

Dear  Sir: 

Replying  to  your  favor  of  the  11th  inst.  regarding  preferen¬ 
tial  voting,  I  beg  to  say  that  I  know  of  no  printed  matter  oppos¬ 
ed  to  preferential  voting  to  which  I  can  refer  you.  Of  course, 
in  our  compaign  for  the  charter  there  was  more  or  less  ephemer¬ 
al  matter  printed  by  the  opposition — but  it  is  nothing  of  any 
dignity  or  validity,  merely  the  politician’s  customary  sort  of  ef¬ 
fort  to  protect  his  preserves.  You  can  find  more  or  less  in  print 
pertaining  to  imperfections  in  preferential  voting  systems  and 
urging  one  system  as  against  another,  but  I  know  of  nothing 


Preferential  Ballot  u 

•of  sufficient  dignity  to  be  noticed  by  your  Bulletin  against  pre¬ 
ferential  voting  as  a  whole. 

Preferential  voting  should  be  viewed  simply  as  the  best 
known  method  for  economically  and  conveniently  safeguarding 
the  majority  interest  in  the  election  of  public  officials  or  their 
nominations  in  a  primary.  No  system  yet  devised  is  entirely 
free  from  all  possible  objections,  nor  is  any  other  human  insti¬ 
tution  that  I  can  think  of.  The  preferential  ballot  simply  of¬ 
fers  voters  an  improved  opportunity  to  get  good  results  if  they 
wish  them.  It  is  not  automatic-  nor  fool-proof,  nor  can  it  be 
expected  to  be,  but  it  has  brought  highly  satisfactory  results  in 
a  number  of  important  cities  and  it  seems  clear  is  destined  to 
spread  rapidly. 

Objectors  to  it  allege  that  it  is  “complicated,”  “keeps  voters 
away  from  the  polls,”  and  is  not  certain  to  elect  the  “best  man.” 
The  idea  that  it  is  complicated,  vanishes  in  the  fact  of  mock 
elections  held  with  audiences  met  to  hear  it  explained.  Experi¬ 
ence  in  Spokane  would  not  indicate  that  it  keeps  voters  away 
from  the  polls,  though  the  first  vote  in  Denver  with  it  was  com¬ 
paratively  light.  In  Denver  it  doubtless  had  not  been  generally 
■explained.  The  more  ignorant  voters  may  have  been  deterred 
from  facing  a  somewhat  unfamiliar  task  and  for  that  reason 
•stayed  away  from  the  polls. 

Regarding  the  kind  of  a  candidate  it  will  elect,  that  depends 
upon  what  kind  of  a  candidate  the  voters  vote  for.  The  pre¬ 
ferential  ballot  will  not  elect  anybody  unless  the  voters  vote 
for  him.  The  Bucklin  system,  which  in  substance  is  the  only 
■one  which  has  thus  far  gone  into  effect  in  American  cities,  and 
which  in  my  judgment  is  unquestionably  the  best  one  known 
for  such  purposes,  may  occasionally  lead  to  the  election  of  the 
voters’  second  choice,  but  it  has  the  off-setting  advantage  that 
it  affords  a  very  substantial  safeguard  against  thoroughly  objec¬ 
tionable  candidates,  such  as  are  frequently  elected  under  the  old 
system.  The  gain  from  the  Bucklin  system — although  it  is  not 
a  panacea — is  a  substantial  one  and  sufficient  to  justify  the  rapid 
-expansion  of  that  system.  It  tends  to  elect  nearly  the  best  if 
not  the  best,  while  the  old  systems  tend  toward  the  worst  or 
nearly  the  worst.  At  least  the  latter  offer  insufficient  barriers 
against  the  worst  or  nearly  the  worst.  The  other  offers  the 
best  now  known. 

One  stock  argument  against  the  preferential  ballot  vocifer¬ 
ously  urged  by  politicians  of  the  Tammany  type,  is  that  the  win¬ 
ner  ought  to  be  required  to  get  a  majority  of  all  choices  ex- 


la  University  of  Oklahoma 

pressed.  Although  this  might  obviously  require  a  vote  for  a. 
candidate  in  excess  of  the  total  number  of  voters,  they  make  a 
lot  of  talk  on  this  point  and  lead  a  lot  of  people  to  suppose  that 
the  preferential  ballot  is  no  substantial  advantage,  since  it  can¬ 
not  insure  a  majority  based  on  such  a  definition,  and  of  course, 
it  cannot  insure  a  majority  based  on  any  rational  definition.  All 
it  can  do  is  to  offer  a  means  for  the  majority  sentiment  to  crys¬ 
tallize  on  some  one  candidate,  if  there  is  any  candidate  running 
both  widely  enough  and  favorably  enough  known  to  attract  the 
vote  of  the  majority,  as  is  frequently  the  case. 

Hoping  that  this  will  cover  the  ground  satisfactorily,  I  am, 
Very  truly  yours, 

LEWIS  JEROME  JOHNSON. 

To  this  letter  we  add  the  following  from  the  same  writer: 

Summary  of  Advantages  of  Preferential  Voting. 

1.  It  permits  the  abolition  of  primaries  without  interference 
with  the  democratic  method  of  nomination  by  a  merely  nomin¬ 
al  number  of  petitioners. 

2.  It  permits  the  nomination  of  a  large  number  of  candi¬ 
dates  with  the  practical  elimination  of  split  tickets. 

3.  It  fosters  campaign  methods  which  greatly  reduce  the 
difficulty  of  getting  high  grade  men  to  stand  for  office.  It  min¬ 
imizes  the  unattractiveness  of  the  campaign  and  effectively  dis¬ 
courages  mud-slinging, — the  candidate  who  might  otherwise  de¬ 
scend  to  slander  of  his  opponents  is  deterred  by  fear  of  alienat¬ 
ing  second  or  other  choice  votes  which  might  come  his  way. 
The  responsibility  on  any  one  nominee  to  win  may  become  so 
slight  that  a  man  may  accept  a  nomination  in  the  midst  of  an 
absence  from  the  state  which  is  prolonged  till  after  election 
day — and  still  be  elected.  This  actually  happened  when  the 
president  of  the  Spokane  Chamber  of  Commerce  was  thus  elect¬ 
ed  in  1911  as  one  of  a  commission  of  five  to  a  four-year  term 
and  from  a  list  of  ninety-two  nominees  for  the  commission. 
Other  results  in  preferential  voting  cities  show  that  the  voters 
are  quick,  as  might  be  expected,  to  elect  a  better  grade  of  of¬ 
ficials  as  soon  as  they  are  brought  within  their  reach. 

4.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  safest  known  means  for  protect¬ 
ing  the  majority  interest  against  the  machine  or  special4, inter¬ 
ests.  It  cannot,  of  course,  insure  a  majority  for  the  winning 
candidate — no  system  of  voting  can  do  so  in  any  literal  sense — 
but,  in  case  no  one  is  widely  enough  and  favorably  enough 


Preferential  Ballot 

known  to  command  a  majority  in  a  free,  open  expression  of 
choice,  it  offers  a  greater  likelihood  than  any  other  known  sys¬ 
tem  that  the  winner  will  be  of  a  type  loyal  to  the  majority  in¬ 
terest,  rather  than  to  any  machine. 

5.  It  greatly  simplifies  the  supremely  important  problem  of 
securing  high-grade,  non-place-hunting,  and  competent  elective 
officials.  The  reasons  are  suggested  in  the  two  preceding  sec¬ 
tions,  but  this  advantage  is  important  enough  to  warrant  sep¬ 
arate  emphasis. 

Of  course  the  easily  obtained  nomination,  freedom  from 
machine  control,  improved  campaign  conditions  and  good 
chance  for  victory  for  an  honest,  competent,  non-self-seeking 
candidate,  which  are  features  of  preferential  ballot  elections, 
must  be  supplemented  by  holding  out  to  such  candidates  prop¬ 
erly  attractive  office-holding  conditions.  This  part  of  the  prob¬ 
lem  has  fortunately,  however,  been  pretty  well  solved  in  our 
commission-governed  cities,  and  the  preferential  ballot  comes 
in  as  a  most  welcome  means  of  filling  out  a  hitherto  most 
troublesome  gap  in  our  election  methods. 

In  closing  it  should  be  once  more  emphasized  that  allowing 
voters  merely  a  first  and  second  choice  does  not  in  a  proper 
sense  constitute  preferential  voting.  Since  the  purpose  of  the 
new  system  is  to  offer  the  easiest  and  most  nearly  certain 
means  for  the  majority  sentiment  to  crystallize  behind  some  one 
of  a  large  number  of  nominees  for  an  office,  it  is  obvious  that 
voters  must  be  permitted  to  vote — in  one  order  or  another — 

FOR  ALL  THE  CANDIDATES  THEY  WISH  TO  SUP¬ 
PORT.  Only  a  small  minority  of  the  cities  mentioned  have 
fallen  into  the  seductive,  dangerous,  and  wholly  needless  error 
of  limiting  the  allowed  number  of  choices  and  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  this  erroneous  practice  will  not  spread. 

The  following  letter  explains  itself: 

THE  LEWIS  AND  CLARK  HIGH  SCHOOL 
Spokane,  Washington 

March  7th,  1914. 

Dr.  J.  W.  Scroggs, 

University  of  Oklahoma, 

Norman,  Oklahoma. 

Dear  Sir: 

A  short  time  ago  Supt.  B.  M.  Watson  placed  in  my  hands  a 
letter  of  inquiry  from  you  concerning  the  objections  to  the  pre- 


14  University  of  Oklahoma 

ferential  voting  system  in  use  here.  Aside  from  what  he  did  in 
furnishing  you  a  copy  of  the  city  charter  providing  for  prefer¬ 
ential  voting,  he  has  asked  me  to  summarize  the  objections  to 
this  system  as  used  here. 

Apart  from  my  incidental  observations,  I  have  made  inquiry 
of  various  men  interested  in  civic  affairs  and  find  that  there  is 
little  objection  urged  against  this  method  of  voting.  Of  . course, 
the  experience  under  it  is  brief,  two  city  elections  and  a  recall 
election  representing  all  of  the  experience  under  the  system. 

The  first  city  election  under  the  present  charter  and  prefer¬ 
ential  system  found  about  ninety-five  candidates  in  the  field  for 
commissioners, — five  to  be  elected. 

In  the  opinion  of  not  a  few  this  first  election  resulted  in  the 
choice  of  one  or  two  men  by  reason  of  second  or  third  choice 
votes  who  otherwise  were  not  first  choice  men,  i.  e.,  from  the 
standpoint  of  desirability.  So  many  candidates  made  the  selec¬ 
tion  depend  upon  pluralities  determined  by  counting  all  second 
and  third  choice  votes.  In  only  one  instance  was  a  candidate 
elected  by  a  plurality  of  first  choice  votes.  This  means  that  four 
of  the  commissioners  were  elected  by  second  and  third  choice 
votes — indifferent  votes,  as  some  regard  it.  In  one  or  two  in¬ 
stances,  according  to  the  man  one  may  be  interviewing,  this 
resulted  in  unfortunate  selections, — selections  which  would  not 
have  been  made  if  voters  had  not  voted  for  other  than  their 
first  choice.  In  other  words,  the  second  and  third  choice  votes 
of  voters  “snowed  under”  the  prospects  of  their  first  choice 
candidates. 

The  first  objection  then  is — 

A  weaker  candidate  in  the  first  choice  of  voters  may  win  by 
reason  of  second  or  third  choice  votes  against  a  stronger  can¬ 
didate  with  more  actual  first  choice  votes  but  far  fewer  second 
or  third  choice  votes. 

A  man  with  clearly  advanced  views  who  can  be  plainly  under¬ 
stood  by  the  people  will  fail  or  succeed  on  first  choice  votes. 
A  man  less  forceful,  but  popular,  will  have  a  large  following  of 
positive  friends  who  give  him  first  choice  votes,  but  who  will 
not  succeed  in  electing  him  by  these  votes.  The  indifferent  vote 
of  second  and  third  choice  gained  by  advertising  or  street  talk 
about  a  “good  fellow”  will  carry  in  this  popular  sport  of  politi¬ 
cians.  The  positive  and  aggressive  candidate  will  win  first 


Preferential  Ballot  15 

choice  votes,  but  few  indifferent  second  or  third  choice  votes. 
Those  who  are  not  entirely  for  him  are  entirely  against  him, — 
hence  a  lesser  qualified  man  may  be  elected. 

The  boomerang  character  of  this  feature  of  preferential  vot¬ 
ing  is  shown  in  the  experience  of  the  author  of  the  preferential 
system  as  used  here.  This  man,  Mr.  Coates,  who  was  postively 
active  in  helping  frame  the  city  charter,  became  a  candidate  for 
commissioner  among  ninety-four  others  in  the  first  city  election. 
His  character  and  tenets  were  favorably  regarded  by  many  who 
gave  him  first  choice  votes,  but  not  a  plurality.  Second  and 
third  choice  votes  elected  him.  He  made  a  strong,  aggressive 
city  commissioner,  won  many  friends  and  made  many  enemies. 
He  was  defeated  for  reelection  last  November'  because  of  lack 
of  support  in  the  second  and  third  choice  columns.  Voters  were 
for  him  absolutely  or  absolutely  against  him. 

The  second  objection — 

The  system  cannot  be  controlled  by  the  “interests.”  No  one 
can  tell  beforehand  how  voters  will  act  in  the  election,  and  no 
employer  can  control  votes.  This  objection  is  obviously  not 
made  by  men  who  entertain  the  objection.  It  is  pointed  out  for 
them, — but  it  exists.  A  man  who  is  solicited  for  a  vote  may  say 
that  he  voted  for  every  man  he  promised  to  vote  for,  since  the 
charter  permits  him  to  vote  for  every  candidate, — as  third  choice. 
Saloon  interests,  under  this  circumstance,  cannot  as  definitely 
tell  what  will  be  the  result  of  selecting  and  promoting  a  candi¬ 
date  acceptable  to  the  churches;  for  instance,  employers  cannot 
determine  the  action  of  employees  at  the  polls  as  definitely. 

The  third  objection — 

In  case  there  are  few  candidates,  as  in  the  election  last  No¬ 
vember,  campaigning  to  control  the  election  takes  place  in  the 
form  of  efforts  to  defeat  what  looks  like  a  winning  candidate  by 
concentrating  the  second  choice  votes  on  some  notoriously  weak 
candidate  who  has  no  standing,  and  who  may  receive  only  five 
hundred  to  seven  hundred  first  choice  votes,  or  less,  in  a  total 
registration  of  twenty-two  thousand  voters,  thus  subtracting 
the  second  choice  votes  from  the  more  desirable  candidate’s 
strength. 

Perhaps  I  have  been  unnecessarily  wordy, — but  I  hope  I 
have  served  you  to  some  extent. 


Very  truly  yours, 


Department  of  History. 


M.  M.  BEDDALL. 


1 6  University  of  Oklahoma 

PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

A  few  words  on  the  workings  of  the  preferential  ballot  first 
adopted  this  year.  The  new  charter  of  the  city  of  Portland  pro¬ 
vides  for  making  nominations  by  the  filing  of  a  relatively  small 
number  of  individual  certificates,  the  method  being  designed  to 
make  the  nomination  exceedingly  easy.  At  the  election  each 
voter  is  allowed  to  indicate  among  the  candidates  thus  nomi¬ 
nated  a  first,  second,  and  third  choice  for  each  office,  no  two 
choices  to  be  for  the  same  candidate,  however.  If  no  one  has 
a  majority  the  third  choice  votes  are  counted  in.  At  the  election 
held  in  June,  1913,  only  a  few  weeks  after  the  charter  was  adopt¬ 
ed,  there  were  some  87  candidates  for  the  four  commissioners 
to  be  elected.  They  included,  along  with  a  modicum  of  very 
good  men,  about  every  species  of  undesirable,  from  strong  and 
experienced  machine  politicians  to  saloon  hangers-on  and  ticket 
takers  at  five-cent  “movies.”  A  voluntary  committee  of  citizens 
published  candid  and  impartial  biographies  of  them  all,  and  late 
in  the  campaign,  in  response  to  an  urgent  popular  demand,  in¬ 
dicated  the  twelve  whom  they  considered  the  best.  The  twelve 
were  all  excellent  men,  but  only  one  of  them  received  enough 
first  choice  votes  to  have  elected  him  if  the  old  plurality  sys¬ 
tem  had  been  working,  and  under  that  method  the  men  elected 
to  the  new  commission  would  have  been  no  whit  better  than 
the  ordinary  type  of  councilmen  from  whom  our  cities  have  suf¬ 
fered  so  long  and  so  grievously.  But  by  use  of  the  second  and 
third  choice  votes  the  tables  were  turned.  The  candidates  elect¬ 
ed  were  all  from  among  the  twelve  named  by  the  committee, 
and  by  the  consensus  of  intelligent  opinion  among  the  very 
best  of  them.  The  new  plan  accomplished  exactly  what  its 
advocates  hacl  claimed.  It  focuses  upon  the  best  men  the  suf¬ 
frages  of  the  voters  enabling  them  to  concentrate  on  a  single 
candidate;  a  thing  which  the  professional  politician  with  his 
better  organization  and  better  discipline  can  always  do.  It  is 
too  early  to  predict  that  the  brilliant  success  achieved  in  this 
election  will  be  permanent,  but  as  explaining  it  in  part  I  may 
quote  the  naive  comment  of  a  voter  who  said  to  me  a  few  days 
after  the  election,  “This  new  way  is  just  what  I  have  always 
wanted.  You  see  a  fellow  really  has  to  give  a  vote  to  his  per¬ 
sonal  friends  or  to  the  men  who  have  done  something  for  him, 
but  he  can  do  that  with  his  first  choice  vote,  and  these  second 
and  third  choice  votes,  I  figure  they  belong  to  the  city.” 

The  tale  of  Oregon’s  experience  in  self-government  may  be 


Preferential  Ballot  17 

■dull  enough  in  the  telling;  it  has  not  been  so  in  the  living.  It 
has  been  alive  with  the  energies  of  struggle,  shot  through  with 
humor,  strong  with  constancy  of  purpose,  sustained  by  the  lift 
of  great  and  grave  hopes.  We  have  been  groping  our  way  in 
no  spirit  of  rash  innovation  nor  unreasoning  anger,  but  with  a 
deep  sense  of  the  perfectibility  as  well  as  of  the  imperfections 
of  our  political  institutions,  toward  that  goal  of  “government  of 
the  people,  for  the  people,  and  by  the  people”  to  which  gener¬ 
ous  hearts  have  aspired  in  all  ages,  and  we  dare  to  hope  our 
blind  and  stumbling  feet  are  set  on  the  path  where  is  found  the 
safety  of  this  Republic  and  the  future  of  democracy  itself. 

W.  S.  U’REN. 


1 8  University  of  Oklahoma 

DIGEST  OF  VARIOUS  ARTICLES. 

Affirmative. 

1.  The  preferential  ballot  has  proved  a  sifting  process.  Each 
successive  choice  acts  as  a  sieve  which  eliminates  the  less 
worthy  candidates. 

2.  To  deprive  a  voter  of  any  power  he  can  legitimately  use 
and  needs  to  use  at  the  polls  is  to  partially  disfranchise  him. 
The  preferential  ballot  gives  the  voter  more  power. 

3.  It  is  the  regular  practice  for  political  rings  to  run  pseudo¬ 
reformers  to  divide  the  vote  of  the  true  reformers,  and  under  oul 
present  system  the  advocates  of  honest  politics  are  helpless. 

4.  Good  men  have  been  defeated  under  the  preferential  bal¬ 
lot;  but  it  has  never  been  due  to  any  defect  of  the  system;  it  was 
the  fault  of  the  voters  which  no  system  can  cure  or  attempt  to 
cure. 

\  5.  The  convention  system  is  completely  discredited;  the  pri¬ 

mary  system  is  little  better;  the  only  other  plan  suggested  is 
the  preferential  ballot,  and  it  has  succeeded  wherever  it  has 
been  tried. 

6.  The  preferential  ballot  is  in  practice  an  instruction  to 
those  who  count  the  ballots  that  if  the  voter’s  first  choice  was 
lost,  count  his  second;  if  that  was  lost  also,  count  his  third.  Of 
course  no  vote  can  be  counted  twice. 

7.  The  gist  of  the  preferential  ballot  is  that  if  a  voter’s  first 
choice  is  not  elected  his  vote  is  not  lost, — he  still  has  his  second 
choice;  if  that  is  lost  also,  he  still  has  his  third  choice.  So  he 
has  three  chances  to  make  his  vote  effective  instead  of  one. 

8.  Under  the  present  system  a  small  minority  may  nomi¬ 
nate.  Under  the  preferential  ballot  each  nominee  would,  in 
most  cases,  have  a  majority,  and  if  not  elected  by  a  majority  he 
would  at  least  be  preferred  by  a  majority  to  any  other  candidate. 

9.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  preferential  ballot  should 
have  been  successful  to  such  an  unusual  degree  from  the  very 
first.  No  serious  defect  has  even  yet  developed.  Even  where 
it  has  been  only  partly  introduced,  it  has  proved  infinitely  su¬ 
perior  to  the  present  system. 

10.  The  preferential  ballot  would  almost  if  not  entirely  do 
away  with  bribery  of  voters.  If  a  corrupt  candidate  wished  to 
bribe  a  voter  he  could  only  buy  one  choice,  and  that  would  not 
pay.  The  results  would  be  so  uncertain  that  bribery  as  now 
practiced  would  be  impracticable. 

,  11.  There  is  universal  complaint  at  the  lack  of  interest  in 

elections,  especially  primary  elections.  It  is  one  of  the  gravest 


Preferential  Ballot  19 

•dangers  which  can  threaten  a  free  government.  One  reason 
for  it  is  that  even  very  intelligent  men  feel  that  their  vote  can 
affect  the  result  so  little  that  it  is  not  worth  the  trouble. 

12.  If  a  man  vote  for  a  candidate  who  gets  more  than  a  ma¬ 
jority  his  vote  is  not  needed, — it  does  not  affect  the  result.  If 
he  vote  for  a  man  who  gets  less  than  a  majority  his  vote  is 
lost,  “thrown  away”  as  the  common  phrase  has  it.  Under  the 
preferential  ballot  he  has  as  many  chances  as  he  has  choices. 

\  13.  It  cannot  be  said  that  because  a  man  votes  for  one  can¬ 
didate  he  therefore  forfeits  all  right  to  any  voice  whatever  con¬ 
cerning  the  others.  His  convictions  concerning  them  are  just 
as  valid  as  those  concerning  his  first  choice  and  just  as  im¬ 
portant  to  the  public,  and  he  has  an  equal  right  to  express  them. 

14.  The  preferential  ballot  is  certainly  worth  a  trial.  It 
could  not  well  be  worse  than  the  present  method,  and  has  prov¬ 
ed  far  better  wherever  it  has  been  tried.  Essentially  the  af¬ 
firmative  argument  is  that  it  should  have  a  fair  trial.  The  es¬ 
sential  issue  is,  “Do  the  arguments  in  favor  of  it  justify  giving 
it  a  trial?” 

15.  Mankind  can  only  grope  its  way  in  political  reforms. 
The  present  system  MUST  be  improved  in  some  way;  all  must 
admit  this.  The  preferential  ballot  is  the  only  new  proposal 
before  the  public.  Those  who  are  opposed  to  the  present  pri¬ 
mary  system,  then,  must  favor  either  the  preferential  ballot  or 
a  return  to  the  convention  system. 

16.  A  good  citizen  is  often  in  doubt  which  of  two  good 
candidates  to  support.  Very  often  they  are  equally  good  in  his 
estimation  but  he  inclines  to  one  because  of  personal  reasons. 
The  second  choice  of  a  corrupt  voter  is  practically  always  a 
better  man  than  his  first  choice.  In  such  cases  the  second 
choice  is  an  immense  public  advantage. 

17.  It  is  less  and  less  common  for  any  candidate  to  get  a 
majority  over  all.  This  means,  of  course,  that  most  officials  are 
elected  by  a  minority.  This  gives  an  immense  advantage  to 
corrupt  rings  and  cliques  which  are  held  together  by  the  hope 
of  plunder.  It  would  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  method 
more  acceptable  to  the  enemies  of  society. 

\  18.  Under  the  preferential  ballot  a  VERY  objectionable 

candidate  cannot  be  elected.  The  successful  candidate  is  the 
LEAST  objectionable  if  he  is  objectionable  at  all.  This  is  of 
itself  an  immense  gain.  Under  our  present  system  the  very 


20 


University  of  Oklahoma 

worst  candidate  has  an  equal  chance  of  election,  and  often  the 
best  chance  if  his  support  is  compact  and  undivided. 

19.  The  preferential  ballot  would  minimize  the  incentive 
for  mud-slinging  and  vilification  so  characteristic  of  present- 
day  campaigns.  If  a  candidate  could  not  get  a  voter’s  first 
choice  he  might  get  his  second  choice,  thus  placing  a  premium 
on  fairness,  courtesy,  and  gentlemanliness,  and  upon  frankness, 
candor,  and  moral  earnestness,  which  we  now  seldom  see. 

20.  Experience  has  demonstrated  that  with  the  preferential 
ballot  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  either  primary  elections  or 
conventions;  after  the  people  get  accustomed  to  it  one  election 
will  be  entirely  sufficient;  thus  saving  an  enormous  expense 
both  to  the  state  and  to  the  candidates,  and  at  the  same  time  ex¬ 
pressing  the  public  will  far  more  fully  and  clearly  than  is  now 
possible. 

21.  The  whole  object  of  an  election  is  to  get  the  choice  of 
the  people.  But  if  there  are  six  candidates  and  the  voter  can 
support  but  one,  the  election  does  not  register  the  choice  of  the 
people  at  all,  but  only  one-sixth  of- it.  If  we  really  wish  to  get 
the  will  of  the  people  every  voter  should  have  the  opportunity 
of  expressing  his  will  concerning  every  candidate,  or  as  many 
of  them  as  he  wishes. 

22.  Any  method  which  makes  it  easier  to  elect  worthy  men 
and  harder  to  elect  unworthy  men  commands  serious  attention; 
it  cannot  be  put  aside  lightly.  Nothing  but  the  most  cogent  and 
convincing  reasons  would  justify  its  rejection.  No  such  reasons 
appear.  Most  of  the  so-called  objections  are  either  fears  which 
have  been  completely  disproved  by  actual  experience;  or  mere 
quibbles  entitled  to  little  consideration. 

\s  23.  The  choice  is  not  between  the  Preferential  Ballot  and 
an  ideal,  flawless  system.  The  choice  is  between  the  Preferen¬ 
tial  Ballot  and  the  most  intolerable  system  in  the  world.  Show¬ 
ing  that  some  form  of  the  Preferential  Ballot  has  imperfections 
or  that  it  is  unable  to  meet  all  demands  is  not  valid  argument. 
The  question  is,  “Is  the  Preferential  system  better  than  the 
plurality  system  now  in  common  use  in  this  country?” 

24.  The  old  convention  system  got  so  rotten  that  it  is  no 
longer  endurable  as  a  means  of  making  nominations,  and  pri¬ 
mary  elections  are  substituted  for  it.  But  in  the  convention 
system  each  delegate  had  opportunity  to  vote  for  different  can¬ 
didates  in  the  successive  ballots  taken.  Under  the  present  pri¬ 
mary  system  the  enemies  of  the  public  welfare  are  always  unit- 


Preferential  Ballot  21 

ed,  and  its  friends  almost  always  divided.  Such  a  plan  is  as 
stupid  as  it  is  suicidal. 

'  25.  The  ideal  of  Democracy  is  majority  rule.  This  will  be 
conceded  by  all  without  discussion.  It  follows,  then,  that  where 
we  cannot  get  a  majority  we  should  get  the  largest  possible 
plurality.  To  demand  that  we  should  submit  to  pluralities  of 
less  than  one-tenth  of  the  vote  is  to  be  false  to  democratic  ideals 
and  principles.  Any  policy  or  method  which  gives  the  largest 
possible  plurality  where  majorities  are  not  obtainable  is  self- 
evidently  and  axiomatically  preferable. 

^  26.  The  trend  of  public  opinion  is  to  give  more  and  more 
power  to  the  people.  Everywhere  the  people  are  be'ng  given  a 
greater  voice  in  the  control  of  their  government.  7  hat  the  will 
of  the  people  is  the  supreme  law  is  no  longer  discussed;  we  are 
rather  trying  to  find  ways  of  realizing  its  truth  and  embodying 
it  in  the  forms  and  procedures  of  our  political  life.  Even  if  the 
will  of  the  people  is  sometimes  mistaken  and  wrong,  the  world 
has  learned  that  there  is  nothing  better. 

27.  Of  course  corrupt  interests  and  their  tools  and  dupes  do 
not  wish  a  full,  free,  and  complete  expression  of  the  voters’  will 
at  the  polls;  it  would  ruin  their  occupation  entirely.  A  “machine” 
or  a  small  selfish  minority  could  never  hope  to  dominate  an  elec¬ 
tion  if  the  people  had  full  opportunity  to  express  their  will  at 
the  polls.  As  it  is,  when  the  ballot  proves  to  be  futile  the  peo¬ 
ple  must  either  submit  or  rebel  with  the  minority  in  control  of 
courts,  police,  and  army.  Such  a  condition  is  intolerable. 

28.  Under  the  present  system  multitudes  are  tempted  to 
run  for  office  because  a  man’s  chances  for  election  do  not  de¬ 
pend  so  much  on  how  many  votes  he  gets  as  upon  how  much 
the  vote  against  him  is  divided.  A  man  who  can  command  one- 
tenth  of  the  total  vote  has  a  chance  of  election  if  there  are  can¬ 
didates  enough.  In  the  primary  election  in  Oklahoma  in  1914 
the  democratic  nominee  for  governor  received  less  than  27  per 
cent,  of  the  total  party  vote,  and  the  candidate  for  attorney 
general  only  a  little  over  23  per  cent. 

29.  If  six  voters  should  vote  for  six  candidates  there  would 
be  no  election.  In  a  convention  there  would  be  successive  bal- 
lotings  giving  opportunity  for  varying  the  choices;  but  we  have 
seen  that  this  is  impossible  in  a  primary  election.  At  present, 
one  additional  vote  for  either  candidate  would  elect  him,  and 
we  would  say  that  “the  people  elected  him.”  Could  any  farce 
be  more  evident?  He  might  be  utterly  repugnant  to  the  other 


22  University  of  Oklahoma 

four  voters  and  yet  they  are  charged  with  electing  him  because 
they  took  part  in  the  election. 

30.  The  preferential  ballot  will  be  especially  advantageous 
to  farmers.  As  a  class  they  are  too  widely  separated  to  get 
together  either  for  consultation  or  cooperation.  At  present  the 
most  dangerous  candidates  are  those  supported  by  the  criminal 
classes  in  the  cities  or  by  corrupt  interests.  Though  a  few 
farmers  might  be  deceived  into  supporting  such  under  our  pres¬ 
ent  ballot  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  would  vote  two  or  three 
choices  for  such.  By  giving  the  farmers  three  choices  their 
vote  would  be  practically  three  times  as  influential  as  it  now  is. 

31.  Experience  has  abundantly  proved  that  voters  do  not 
duplicate  their  first  choices  in  their  second.  The  order  in  which 
human  nature  usually  responds  to  such  a  situation  is:  First 
choice,  which  man  do  I  like  best;  second  choice,  which  will 
make  the  best  official.  To  the  public  the  second  choice  has 
usually  more  value  than  the  first,  of  which  it  is  entirely  depriv¬ 
ed  by  our  present  system.  Actual  tests  where  the  preferential 
primary  is  in  use  show  that  an  excellent  candidate  will  receive 
a  small  first  choice  vote  but  an  overwhelming  second  choice 
vote. 

32.  The  Object  of  elections  is  to  ascertain  the  people’s  will 
concerning  candidates.  There  are  only  four  alternatives:  Muz¬ 
zle  the  voters  at  the  polls,  go  back  to  the  convention,  limit  the 
number  of  candidates,  or  the  preferential  ballot.  The  first  is  un¬ 
thinkable,  the  second  has  failed,  the  third  is  impossible,  and  the 
fourth  has  proved  one  of  the  most  successful  devices  in  political 
history.  Even  if  the  objections  to  a  preferential  ballot  were  a 
hundred-fold  greater  than  they  are,  it  would  still  be  by  far  the 
best  method  known  of  dealing  with  the  problem  of  nominations. 
It  is  right,  just,  and  expedient. 

33.  The  preferential  vote  is  endorsed  by  all  the  leading 
statesmen  in  the  United  States  and  in  foreign  countries.  Presi¬ 
dent  Wilson  is  president  of  the  Preferential  Voting  League  of 
the  United  States.  Ex-President  Roosevelt  and  ex-President 
Taft  are  among  the  leading  members  of  the  League.  It  is  op¬ 
posed  only  by  corrupt  politicians  and  by  those  who  profit  by 
the  present  inefficient  voting  methods,  by  all  those  who  seek  to 
thwart  a  full  and  complete  expression  of  the  will  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.  The  preferential  ballot  would  put  an  end  to  the  pernicious 
activities  of  the  corrupt  party  boss. 

34.  The  preferential  ballot  could  dispense  with  one  election, 
thus  saving  the  state  and  the  tax  payers  hundreds  of  thousands 


Preferential  Ballot  23 

of  dollars  every  two  years.  It  will  also  save  the  expense  of 
thousands  of  candidates  in  making  their  campaigns  for  nomi¬ 
nation.  This  item  will  total  millions  of  dollars  for  every  elec¬ 
tion.  And  the  people  pay  the  bill.  They  pay  not  only  the  legi¬ 
timate  expenses  of  holding  the  election,  printing  ballots,  rent  for 
the  polling  places,  salaries  of  judges  of  election  and  returning 
and  canvassing  officers,  but  in  the  long  run  they  pay  the  cam¬ 
paign  expenses  of  the  candidates  as  well. 

35.  We  must  understand,  then,  that  any  effort  to  prevent  a 
full  expression  of  the  people’s  will  is  really  an  effort  to  limit 
the  rule  of  the  people.  The  people  must  speak  their  will  before 
it  can  be  made  effective.  It  follows  that  any  effort  to  muzzle 
the  people  at  the  ballot  box  is  in  reality  an  attack  on  popular 
government.  To  refuse  to  provide  full  and  complete  facilities 
for  the  expression  of  the  people’s  will  is  to  deny  the  right  of 
the  people  to  express  their  will.  The  real  question,  then,  is 
whether  the  Preferential  Ballot  will  afford  greater  facilities  for 
full  and  complete  expression  of  the  popular  will. 

36.  Few  delegates  would  attend  a  convention  if  only  one 
ballot  were  taken;  it  would  not  pay.  The  same  feeling  will  soon 
prevail  concerning  primary  elections.  Since  successive  ballots 
cannot  be  taken  in  a  primary  election,  evidently  the  most  just 
and  expedient  method  is  to  allow  each  voter  to  express  several 
choices.  If  then  after  counting  it  appears  that  the  first  choices 
give  no  one  a  majority,  the  second  choices  could  be  counted;  if 
there  were  still  no  majority,  the  third  choices  could  be  counted, 
and  so  on.  Experience  proves  that  two  or  three  choices  are 
sufficient  to  remedy  the  worst  defects  of  the  primary  election. 

37.  It  seldom  happens  in  any  primary  election  that  there 
are  not  two  or  more  candidates  for  either  of  whom  an  elector 
would  be  willing  to  vote,  but  several  for  whom  nothing  could 
induce  him  to  vote.  By  limiting  his  power  to  the  expression  of 
only  one  choice  he  can  vote  for  one  and  must  treat  all  the  others 
exactly  alike.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  his  ballot  so  limited 
does  not  express  his  will  or  his  attitude  towards  the  candidates, 
and  so  such  an  election  would  not  show  the  real  acceptability  of 
the  candidates,  the  very  thing  for  which  elections  are  supposed 
to  be  held.  The  method  of  voting  should  reveal  the  public 
opinion. 

38.  Under  the  present  system  a  voter  must  often  sacrifice 
his  principles  for  the  man.  If  he  votes  for  a  man  who  is  not 
elected  he  fails  to  effectively  support  the  principle  for  which 
he  stood.  If  he  has  a  second  choice  he  can  vote  for  another 


24 


University  of  Oklahoma 

man  holding  the  same  principles  and  may  help  elect  him.  So 
that  principles  are  safer  under  a  preferential  ballot  than  under 
the  present  system.  It  is  common  to  see  principles  sacrificed 
to  the  ambition  of  candidates.  A  man  will  run  for  office  when 
he  knows  full  well  that  he  will  divide  the  support  of  his  prin¬ 
ciples  and  elect  a  man  holding  the  opposite.  This  is  constantly 
happening. 

39.  In  some  cities  and  countries  the  plan  has  been  adopted 
of  requiring  a  second  election  when  no  candidate  has  a  ma¬ 
jority.  This  is  not  only  an  enormous  expense  but  it  fails  to 
express  the  real  will  of  the  people.  The  candidates  at  the  second 
election  must  necessarily  be  those  who  had  the  highest  vote  at 
the  first  election.  But  these  are  very  likely  to  be  the  ones  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  machines,  and  the  voters  at  the  second  primary 
must  choose  between  two  candidates  both  of  whom  they  re¬ 
pudiate.  It  looks  more  like  a  method  of  defeating  the  people’s 
will  than  a  method  of  ascertaining  it.  It  is  but  little  if  any  bet¬ 
ter  than  the  present  system. 

40.  The  only  rule  which  conserves  the  public  welfare  is, 
as  President  Wilson  says,  the  rule  of  right  and  reason.  We 
believe  in  the  rule  of  the  people  only  because  history  shows 
that  they  are  more  likely  to  give  us  the  rule  of  right  and 
reason  than  any  monarchy  or  oligarchy.  Beyond  all  question 
the  preferential  ballot  is  an  aid  to  the  rule  of  the  people,  and 
so  of  right  and  reason.  It  makes  it  harder  for  an  oligarchy  of 
any  kind  to  control  or  defeat  the  will  of  the  majority.  Its  sole 
purpose  is  to  make  sure  that  the  will  of  the  majority  is  fully  and 
clearly  expressed.  And  experience  is  proving  that  it  really  does 
this,  even  where  only  partly  tried. 

41.  They  hdve  had  primary  elections  in  Arkansas  for  a  long 
time.  The  tactics  of  those  who  wished  licensed  saloons  was  to 
get  one  license  man  and  several  anti-license  men  to  run  for 
county  judge.  This  would  divide  the  temperance  people  and 
elect  the  license  man  by  a  plurality  vote.  This  often  happened 
when  not  one-fourth  of  the  voters  favored  the  successful  candi¬ 
date.  We  know  that  such  things  are  done  in  every  election. 
Our  present  method  enables  a  determined  faction  however  cor¬ 
rupt  to  keep  itself  in  power  indefinitely  by  the  simple  device  of 
dividing  its  opponents.  And  the  characteristic  American  hun¬ 
ger  for  office  will  continue  this  condition. 

42.  The  abuses  of  our  present  system  are  already  enormous 
and  rapidly  increasing.  The  voter  is  overwhelmed  with  candi¬ 
dates  at  every  primary  election.  No  one  can  possibly  obtain  a 


Preferential  Ballot  25 

majority  and  nominations  are  by  smaller  and  smaller  minorities. 
No  man  who  supports  the  present  system  can  plead  ignorance 
of  the  facts;  and  pretexts  and  excuses  will  no  longer  avail.  All 
must  admit  that  the  present  system  must  be  improved  or  be 
abandoned.  It  is  the  best  possible  system  for  enabling  a  few 
selfish  men  to  dominate  the  state  for  their  own  interests.  There 
are  objections  to  everything,  but  there  are  fewer  valid  objec¬ 
tions  to  the  preferential  primary  than  to  any  similar  proposal. 

43.  The  most  unanswerable  argument  for  the  preferential 
ballot  is  successful  experience.  It  has  already  been  introduced 
in  Grand  Junction,  Pueblo,  Colorado  Springs,  and  Denver,  Colo¬ 
rado;  Spokane,  Washington;  Duluth,  Minnesota;  Portland, 
Oregon;  Cleveland,  Ohio.  It  is  used  for  final  elections  in  West 
Australia,  Queensland,  Victoria,  and  Tasmania;  and  for  pri¬ 
mary  elections  in  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  North  Dakota; 
and  has  been  partially  introduced  in  Idaho,  Washington,  Ne¬ 
braska,  California,  Oregon,  New  Jersey,  and  South  Dakota. 
Different  methods  are  being  tried  but  the  universal  testimony 
of  all  but  the  corrupt  or  ignorant  is  that  any  form  is  an  infinite 
improvement. 

44.  Experience  demonstrates  that  candidates  for  corrupt  or 
selfish  interests  poll  their  full  strength  on  the  first  choice  bal¬ 
lot.  Nobody  else  is  interested  in  them  so  they  get  almost 
nothing  on  the  second  choice  ballot.  The  experience  is  that  the 
largest  choice  vote  goes  to  the  ablest  and  cleanest  candidates, 
to  the  men  of  the  highest  character  and  reputation.  Cases  have 
occurred  where  a  man  receiving  a  small  first  choice  vote  was 
the  almost  unanimous  second  choice.  That  is  to  say,  in  the 
second  choices  the  chances  are  in  favor  of  the  public  and  against 
its  enemies.  A  voter  prefers  “ A ”  as  his  first  choice.  Of  the 
remaining  candidates  he  thinks  “B”  is  the  safest,  the  least  ob¬ 
jectionable  so  he  gives  him  his  second  choice. 

45.  The  present  system  is  absolutely  intolerable.  What¬ 
ever  is  done,  this  cannot  continue.  We  are  deceiving  ourselves 
with  mere  forms  when  we  are  governed  by  the  machine.  The 
ballot  box  is  the  arbiter  of  all  our  political  fortunes;  we  cannot 
afford  to  make  it  a  farce.  Experience  proves  that  the  prefer¬ 
ential  ballot  reduces  this  evil  to  a  minimum,  as  in  Wisconsin. 
It  shows  that  while  first  choices  are  influenced  chiefly  by  per¬ 
sonal  or  party  reasons,  the  second  choices  are  prevailingly  for 
the  ablest  and  best  known  and  best  trusted  men.  This  is  not 
mere  theory;  it  actually  happens.  And  when  the  machine  finds 


26 


University  of  Oklahoma 

that  nothing  is  gained  by  dividing  the  anti-machine  vote  they 
quit  trying,  and  the  number  of  candidates  diminish. 

46.  All  arguments  against  the  preferential  ballot  are  abso¬ 
lutely  negatived  and  discredited  by  the  overwhelming  success 
it  has  achieved  wherever  it  has  been  tried.  It  is  useless  to  argue 
that  the  preferential  ballot  will  not  work  when  it  IS  working, 
and  working  better  than  anything  else  that  has  ever  been  tried. 
While  the  first  steamboat  was  crossing  the  Atlantic  a  learned 
engineer  read  a  paper  proving  conclusively  that  it  could  not  be 
done.  When  the  electric  light  was  first  discovered  experts  at 
Madison,  Wisconsin,  proved  to  their  own  satisfaction  that  it 
was  impossible.  The  opponents  of  the  preferential  ballot  are 
equally  mistaken.  They  are  trying  to  prove  that  it  will  not  work 
when  it  is  working  with  complete  and  triumphant  success. 

47.  Because  a  voter  expresses  his  preference  for  one  can¬ 
didate  is  no  possible  reason  why  he  should  forfeit  his  right  to 
express  his  preference  among  the  other  candidates.  If  there 
were  a  dozen  candidates  the  voter  has  an  qual  right  to  indicate 
his  opinion  concerning  each  of  them.  Voting  for  one  rejects  the 
others  as  first  choice  of  course  but  expresses  no  preference  be¬ 
tween  them;  he  is  powerless  to  prevent  the  worst  one  of  the 
eleven  from  being  elected.  In  other  words  he  loses  eleven- 
twelfths  of  his  voting  power;  and  if  there  were  twenty  candi¬ 
dates  he  would  lose  nineteen-twentieths,  and  so  on.  He  could 
have  his  full  power  only  when  there  were  but  two  candidates. 
His  ballot  should  enable  him  to  indicate  all  the  names  most 
satisfactory  to  him. 

48.  Under  our  present  system  there  is  an  increasing  number 
of  good  citizens  of  all  classes, — farmers,  preachers,  teachers,, 
business  men,  laborers  who  feel  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
go  to  the  polls  on  election  day.  They  see  that  politics  is 
manipulated  by  the  professionals  who  make  every  effort  to  de¬ 
feat  the  popular  will.  The  effect  of  a  single  choice  at  the  polls 
is  so  insignificant,  so  easily  offset  or  annulled,  their  vote  would 
not  make  much  difference  so  they  stay  away.  No  democracy 
can  survive  the  loss  of  such  voters  and  for  such  a  reason.  When 
there  is  only  one  machine  candidate,  who  will  get  any  consider¬ 
able  vote  and  a  dozen  anti-machine  candidates  what  is  the  use 
of  voting?  The  inevitable  result  is  just  as  certain  before  the 
voting  as  after  the  counting. 

49.  It  is  objected  that  an  intelligent  voter  can  use  the  pref¬ 
erential  ballot  more  effectively  than  an  ignorant,  incapable  voter 

No  legislation  can  make  ignorance  equal  to  intelligence. 


can. 


Preferential  Ballot  27 

The  state  goes  to  enormous  expense  to  give  every  voter  an  op- 
portunity  to  become  intelligent  and  capable;  if  he  does  not  avail 
himself  of  it  the  fault  is  his  own.  If  the  intelligent  citizen  can 
use  the  ballot  more  effectively  than  the  hobo  or  the  ignoramus 
nobody  is  wronged  and  the  state  is  the  gainer.  The  primary 
object  of  the  ballot  is  public  service,  not  private  gain,  else  a 
man  could  sell  his  vote.  Incompetent  service  is  barely  service 
at  all.  A  ballot  which  gives  the  advantage  to  intelligent  citizen¬ 
ship  and  at  the  same  time  makes  selfish,  unsocial  schemes  almost 
impossible  is  as  near  the  ideal  as  we  can  well  hope  for. 

50.  The  theory  and  practice  of  free  government  centers  at 
the  ballot  box.  If  the  ballot'  fails  rightly  to  express  the  will  of 
the  people  we  have  a  clear  perversion  of  free  government.  It 
is  notorious  that  the  result  of  an  election  is  often  contrary  to 
the  wishes  of  a  great  majority  of  the  people.  These  facts  are 
becoming  so  well  known  that  men  can  no  longer  hold  up  their 
heads  among  patriotic  people  and  advocate  the  continuance  of 
cur  present  methods.  The  will  of  the  people  is  so  often  defeat¬ 
ed  that  many  are  losing  confidence  in  free  institutions  and  popu¬ 
lar  government;  and  the  determination  to  introduce  methods  of 
voting  which  will  give  a  fuller  and  freer  expression  of  the  popu¬ 
lar  will  is  rapidly  becoming  irresistible.  The  people  can  no 
longer  be  tricked  by  plausible  arguments;  they  demand  results. 

51.  In  the  practical  working  of  the  preferential  ballot  the 
voter  indicates  his  first  choice  exactly  as  in  the  present  ballot. 
If  any  candidates  has  a  majority  of  the  first  choices  he  is  duly 
elected  and  the  election  is  over.  If,  however,  no  candidate  has  a 
majority  of  the  first  choices  we  have  to  choose  between  the 
present  method  of  declaring  the  one  with  the  largest  minority 
elected  or  permitting  another  choice.  If  it  were  not  for  the  ex¬ 
pense  and  delay  of  a  second  election  that  would  be  universally 
resorted  to,  as  in  Germany,  and  a  second  ballot  as  in  conven¬ 
tions.  But  a  second  election  is  not  necessary.  A  second  choice 
can  be  indicated  on  the  same  ballot  which  indicates  the  first 
choice,  and  all  the  expense  and  delay  of  a  second  election  re¬ 
duced  to  merely  a  recount  of  the  first  ballot  and  adding  in  the 
second  choices. 

52.  We  all  know  that  a  multitude  of  candidates  means  that 
a  minority  is  trying  to  nominate  an  unworthy  man  by  dividing 
the  opposition  to  him.  Both  theory  and  experience  demonstrate 
that  the  preferential  ballot  makes  it  impossible  for  a  small  mi¬ 
nority  to  triumph  over  an  unorganized  and  divided  majority. 
It  involves  no  possible  favoritism  or  injustice  to  any  voter  for 


28  University  of  Oklahoma 

all  have  exactly  the  same  privilege.  The  essence  of  the  remedy 
is  in  removing  all  restrictions  from  the  voters  at  the  polls  and 
allowing  them  the  fullest  possible  expression  of  their  will. 
What  honest  objection  can  possibly  be  made  to  that?  The 
delegate  whom  the  voter  sends  to  a  convention  may  vary  his 
choices  in  successive  ballots  as  much  as  he  pleases,  but  in  the 
primary  eletcion  the  voter  himself  is  allowed  but  one  choice, 
however  inadequate  it  may  be  as  an  expression  of  his  will. 

53.  Suppose  the  issue  in  a  city  election  is  the  granting  of  a 
corrupt  franchise  by  the  city  council.  Those  who  favor  the 
franchise  are  in  the  minority  but  by  nominating  a  single  fran¬ 
chise  man  in  each  ward  and  concentrating  on  him,  and  getting 
a  number  of  candidates  to  run  who  are  opposed  to  the  fran¬ 
chise  they  easily  divide  the  opposition,  elect  their  men  and  get 
their  franchise  When  it  may  be  that  three-fourths  of  the  people 
are  opposed  to  it.  This  happens  again  and  again.  But  with  sec¬ 
ond  choices  all  this  is  changed.  The  first  choices  would  be 
divided  exactly  as  now,  but  the  best  men  would  get  the  largest 
vote  of  the  second  choices  while  the  franchise  candidates  could 
get  no  second  choices  for  they  have  only  one  candidate  in  each 
ward.  Now  under  the  preferential  ballot  since  the  pro-fran¬ 
chise  candidates  did  not  get  a  majority  the  second  choices  must 
be  counted.  While  the  anti-franchise  voters  would  divide  on 
candidates  they  would  all  vote  against  the  franchise.  The  re¬ 
sult  would  be  that  the  second  ballot  or  choice  would  double  the 
anti-franchise  vote  while  the  utmost  strength  of  the  franchise 
supporters  was  given  in  the  first  choice  ballots  and  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  be  increased,  for  in  each  ward  they  concentrated  their 
strength  on  a  single  candidate  and  have  no  second  choice. 
Under  the  preferential  ballot,  then,  their  case  would  have  been 
absolutely  hopeless  from  the  first.  Their  only  chance  to  win 
is  to  muzzle  the  voters  at  the  polls  so  that  there  cannot  be  a 
full,  free,  fair  expression  of  their  will. 


Preferential  Ballot  29 

DIGEST  OF  VARIOUS  ARTICLES. 

Negative. 

1.  The  preferential  ballot  is  sometimes  called  a  “majority 
system.”  It  is  not,  and  no  system  yet  proposed  will,  in  all  cases, 
secure  a  majority  for  one  candidate. 

2.  It  is  no  argument  to  say  that  unworthy  men  are  some¬ 
times  elected  under  our  present  system.  That  will  happen  under 
any  system.  If  bad  men  get  votes  enough  under  any  system 
they  will  be  elected. 

3.  But  if  a  vote  is  so  complicated  that  its  results  cannot  be 
determined  it  creates  a  condition  closely  akin  to  anarchy.  When 
in  the  excitement  of  an  election  different  results  are  announced 
there  would  undoubtedly  be  strife  and  possibly  civil  war. 

4.  The  affirmative  are  advocating  a  system  where  the  chief 
thing  is  not  how  you  vote  but  how  you  count.  Enough  men  get 
“counted  out”  now  with  a  single  choice;  what  could  we  expect 
when  each  voter  tried  to  express  three  or  more  choices? 

5.  Whatever  the  purposes  of  the  proposed  system  it  must 
be  held  responsible  for  its  failures.  One  could  not  criticise  the 
purpose  of  perpetual  motion;  it  is  magnificent.  It  is  not  the 
purpose  that  counts  but  the  efficiency.  Folly  may  easily  be  a 
crime. 

6.  The  advocates  of  the  preferential  primary  have  no  right 
to  urge  the  change  till  they  can  agree  on  how  to  count.  To 
adopt  a  system  which  has  three  ways  of  counting,  all  giving  dif¬ 
ferent  results,  could  only  result  in  greater  confusion  and  uncer¬ 
tainty  than  now  exists. 

7.  The  complications  of  the  preferential  ballot  are  inherent 
in  the  system.  There  is  no  possibility  that  they  can  ever  be  elimi¬ 
nated.  And  as'  every  system  tends  to  become  more  complicated 
and  involved  with  use,  if  a  ballot  begins  by  being  incompre¬ 
hensible  what  can  be  its  future? 

8.  According  to  the  showing  made  by  the  affirmative  the 
very  same  vote  may  elect  different  men  according  to  the  way 
the  vote  is  counted;  and  the  decision  is  arbitrary  as  to  which 
method  shall  be  used.  You  would  have  to  have  fine  mathema¬ 
ticians  for  election  judges,  and  then  they  would  not  agree  as  to 
what  should  be  the  result. 

9.  The  preferential  ballot,  by  means  of  its  second  and  other 
choices,  enables  several  candidates  to  combine  against  another, 
thus  opening  the  way  to  far  more  corrupt  bargaining  and  trad¬ 
ing  than  is  possible  under  our  present  straight-forward,  clean- 


30  University  of  Oklahoma 

cut,  single-choice  ballot.  The  possibilities  of  corruption  would 
be  far  greater  than  under  our  present  system. 

10.  The  preferential  ballot  is  illusory  in  that  with  all  its 
fuss  and  feathers  it  does  not  secure  a  majority  of  all  the  choices. 
Even  though  each  voter  had  five  choices  the  so-called  winner 
would  still  have  a  minority  in  perhaps  most  cases.  As  all  the 
choices  after  the  first  indicate  but  little  real  preference,  it  is 
evident  that  but  little  at  most  is  gained  by  the  innovation. 

11.  While  the  “high  brows”  who  advocate  the  complicated 
ticket  required  by  the  advocates  of  the  preferential  primary  may 
possibly  see  through  all  its  intricacies  it  is  certain  to  be  and  to 
remain  a  mystery  to  the  common  man.  And  no  free  people  will 
ever  trust  the  correctness  of  a  vote  to  a  method  of  counting 
which  they  do  not  understand.  This  is  self-evident  and  unques¬ 
tionable. 

12.  Every  added  complication  gives  the  trickster  an  im¬ 
mensely  increased  advantage.  Every  additional  count  gives  op¬ 
portunity  for  renewed  manipulations  and  tamperings.  Where 
voters  must  vote  for  not  only  a  first  choice  but  for  two  or  more 
otb^r  choices  the  possibilities  for  fraud  which  cannot  be  de¬ 
tected  are  indefinitely  increased.  To  advocate  a  system  which 
aids  fraud  is  neither  patriotism  nor  good  citizenship. 

13.  The  advocates  of  a  preferential  primary  do  not  agree 
among  themselves  as  to  how  the  vote  should  be  counted.  Two 
of  the  methods  are  admitted  to  be  defective  even  by  their  ad¬ 
vocates,  and  under  the  third  method  if  the  voter  does  not  ex¬ 
press  all  his  choices  they  must  be  filled  in  for  him  by  the  judges. 
That  condemns  it.  That  such  changes  would  greatly  increase 
the  opportunities  for  fraud  is  absolutely  undeniable. 

14.  There  is  little  or  no  demand  for  the  preferential  ballot 
among  the  leaders  and  successful  statesmen.  The  demand 
comes  chiefly  from  professional  agitators  and  disappointed  of¬ 
fice-seekers  who  have  failed  to  secure  any  solid  and  influential 
following  among  the  present  parties;  men  who  know  that  they 
are  nobody’s  first  choice  think  that  if  second  or  third  or  tenth 
choices  could  be  counted  they  would  have  some  chance  for 
election. 

15.  A  justice  of  the  supreme  court  in  Pennsylvania  says 
that  in  1910  more  than  100,000  defective  ballots  were  voted  in 
that  state.  This  was  under  a  perfectly  simple,  uncomplicated 
ballot  with  only  one  choice.  The  fact  must  be  reckoned  with 
that  men  become  confused  when  they  undertake  to  fill  out  a  bal¬ 
lot.  It  is  useless  to  criticise  or  deny  this  statement.  This  fact 


Preferential  Ballot  31 

is  one  of  the  limitations  of  democracy  which  we  must  recognize 
and  provide  for  as  best  we  can. 

16.  It  is  very  difficult  to  get  the  vote  counted  correctly  when 
each  voter  has  but  one  choice.  A  recount  very  rarely  shows  the 
same  result  as  the  first  count;  and  very  often  the  recount  elects 
a  different  man.  To  count  a  vote  and  make  absolutely  no  mis¬ 
takes  is  a.  well-night  impossible  feat.  The  most  we  can  hope 
for  is  that  the  errors  should  not  be  large  enough  to  change  the 
right  result.  To  further  complicate  a  count  already  difficult  is 
not  only  inexpedient  but  suicidal. 

17.  The  chief  consideration  in  any  proposed  political  reform 
is  “will  it  work?”  It  may  be  fine  in  theory  but  utterly  impractic¬ 
able.  The  philosopher,  John  Locke,  wrote  the  colonial  constitu¬ 
tion  for  Georgia.  It  was  fine  in  theory  but  a  ridiculous  failure 
in  practice.  Plato,  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  all  time,  wrote  a 
description  of  an  ideal  republic,  but  it  will  never  be  even  tried 
by  rational  men.  That  political  theories  are  plausible  is  no 
evidence  that  they  are  practicable. 

18.  The  first  question  with  every  device  of  government  is 
its  expediency,  its  practicableness.  If  it  will  not  work,  then 
there  is  nothing  more  to  be  said  about  it;  it  is  not  only  useless 
as  an  expedient  of  government,  but  dangerous.  All  uncertainty 
as  to  whether  a  thing  will  work  or  not  is  the  very  strongest 
argument  against  it.  We  do  not  need  to  show  that  it  will  work 
badly;  we  only  have  to  show  that  it  has  not  been  proved  that  it 
works  well.  The  presumption  is  against  every  political  device 
until  it  has  been  proved  to  be  expedient  and  practicable. 

19.  It  has  been  fully  demonstrated  that  political  parties  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  a  free  government.  Even  though  they 
are  sometimes  abused  they  are  still  indispensable.  It  is  evident 
that  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  preferential  ballot  is  to  destroy 
political  parties.  All  political  organization  must  go  to  pieces  at 
the  polls  when  a  voter  must  annul  his  first  choice  by  his  second, 
and  both  his  first  and  second  by  his  third  choice.  It  is  hard 
enough  to  line  up  voters  in  support  of  party  principles  with 
only  one  choice;  with  three  or  more  it  would  be  utterly  im¬ 
possible. 

20.  It  has  been  demonstrated  in  Oklahoma  and  elsewhere 
that  a  great  many  voters  do  not  have  even  a  first  choice.  It  is 
worth  thousands  of  votes  in  a  state  election  to  be  near  the  top 
of  the  list  of  candidates  on  the  ballot.  This  fact  is  admitted 
and  the  legislature  has  tried  to  remedy  it  by  rotating  the  names 
on  the  ballot  in  alphabetical  order.  Now  if  there  are  thousands 


32 


University  of  Oklahoma 

of  voters  who  do  not  even  have  a  first  choice,  what  is  the  use  of 
giving  them  two  or  more  choices?  What  possible  gain?  And 
after  all,  no  voter  has  more  than  one  real  choice.  His  second 
and  third  choices  only  mean  that  he  would  tolerate  those  if  he 
had  to. 

21.  Again,  the  advocates  of  a  preferential  ballot  cannot  even 
agree  as  to  how  a  ballot  should  be  marked.  Some  would  have 
separate  columns  for  first  and  second  choices  and  a  column  for 
all  other  choices.  Some  would  have  five  choices  with  as  many 
columns.  If  any  voter  should  put  the  “X”  indicating  his  choice 
in  the  wrong  column  it  would  vitiate  his  ballot.  Others  would 
have  the  voter  designate  his  choice  by  placing  the  number  after 
each  name  which  indicates  the  rank  of  his  preference  for  each 
candidate;  so  that  each  voter  would  have  to  distinguish  clearly 
between  his  fifth  and  seventh  choices,  for  example,  or  run  the 
risk  of  defeating  his  purpose. 

22.  Under  the  preferential  ballot  system,  if  a  strong  party 
man  cannot  elect  his  own  candidate  he  would  prefer  to  have  the 
weakest  and  most  disreputable  candidate  of  the  opposite  party 
elected.  Although  this  may  seem  incredible  treason  to  free  in¬ 
stitutions  it  is  notorious  that  partisans  would  do  this.  Under 
the  present  system  a  man  can  vote  only  his  own  ticket;  he  is 
powerless  to  meddle  with  the  ticket  of  any  other  party.  But 
under  a  preferential  system,  schemes  and  tricks  and  complica¬ 
tions  would  be  beyond  the  control  of  human  intelligence.  As 
soon  as  politicians  learn  to  use  it  they  would  have  the  public 
more  at  their  mercy  than  ever. 

23.  The  affirmative  offer  us  three  systems  of  counting  votes, 
and  they  cannot  agree  among  themselves  as  to  which  is  best. 
Champions  of  the  Bucklin  system  claim  that  it  is  far  superior 
to  any  other.  Advocates  of  the  Ware  system  are  sure  that  no 
other  system  is  practicable  but  theirs.  While  advocates  of  the 
Nanson  system  demonstrate  mathematically  that  both  the  other 
systems  are  hopelessly  defective.  Supporters  of  both  the  Ware 
and  Bucklin  systems  admit  the  superiority  of  the  Nanson  method 
but  claim  that  it  is  far  too  complicated  to  ever  be  used  except 
in  very  small  communities.  Its  superiority  can  only  be  demon¬ 
strated  by  the  use  of  higher  mathematics  with  which  not  one  in 
a  thousand  is  familiar  enough  to  see  any  force  in  the  alleged 
arguments. 

24.  The  ethical  maxim,  principles  before  men,  is  fundamental 
in  politics.  We  cannot  sacrifice  it  without  self-destruction.  The 
preferential  ballot  clearly  emphasizes  men  more  than  principles. 


Preferential  Ballot  33 

In  fact,  principles  must  be  lost  sight  of  almost  entirely.  When 
it  comes  to  principles,  we  cannot  have  first,  second,  and  other 
choices.  A  man’s  first  choice  cannot  be  protection  and  his  sec¬ 
ond  choice  free  trade;  license  his  first  choice  and  prohibition  his 
second  choice.  If  there  are  three  choices  but  only  two  candidates 
how  can  the  elector  vote  the  third  choice  and  regard  his  prin¬ 
ciples?  He  must  evidently  forsake  his  principles  if  he  votes  for 
a  third  choice,  for  there  are  only  two  candidates  representing 
his  principles.  It  is  evident  that  the  preferential  ballot  relegates 
principles  to  an  inferior  place. 

25.  One  of  the  serious  objections  to  the  Ware  system  is  the 
fact  that  a  man  who  is  personally  the  best  man  for  the  office  may 
not  command  a  very  high  first  choice  vote,  because  he  may  be¬ 
long  to  a  minority  party,  and  party  lines  may  be  strongly  drawn. 
As  a  second  choice,  however,  he  might  be  the  overwhelming 
choice  of  a  large  majority.  Nearly  all  the  voters  might  feel  that 
if  they  cannot  elect  their  party  man  they  would  much  prefer 
this  minority  party  man  to  any  other  candidate.  Under  the 
Ware  plan  such  a  man  would  be  excluded  if  he  had  the  smallest 
first  choice  vote,  even  if  he  were  the  unanimous  second  choice. 
This  defeats  the  chief  end  of  the  preferential  ballot;  and  in  the 
judgment  of  most  advocates  of  the  preferential  ballot  is  of  little 
if  any  advantage  over  the  present  system. 

26.  The  preferential  ballot  will  keep  practically  every  one 
away  from  the  polls  who  does  not  thoroughly  understand  it  or 
who  is  even  uncertain  as  to  his  thorough  knowledge  of  it.  This 
actually  happened  at  Denver.  Thus  to  complicate  a  method  of 
voting  so  that  many  will  not  and  maybe  cannot  understand  it  is 
practically  to  disfranchise  them.  Men  are  very  prone  to  neglect 
their  electoral  duties  anyway,  and  they  will  be  very  much  more 
apt  to  if  they  think  it  is  not  worth  while  to  vote.  Such  a  feel¬ 
ing  will  be  very  much  intensified  if  they  feel  that  because  of  a 
complicated  ballot  and  their  insufficient  knowledge  of  how  to  pse 
it  they  may  not  express  their  real  wish  even  if  they  do  vote. 
It  is  all  too  easy  for  voters  to  say,  “What’s  the  use?”  already 
without  giving  any  more  justification  for  it. 

27.  One  state  having  the  preferential  ballot  had  this  experi¬ 
ence.  It  had  a  chronic  candidate  for  governor  who  had  been 
trying  for  twenty-five  years  to  get  the  nomination.  Under  the 
convention  system  he  sometimes  got  a  few  complimentary  votes 
but  no  one  really  took  his  candidacy  seriously.  After  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  preferential  primary  there  were  on  one  occasion 
three  candidates,  one  of  whom  was  the  chronic  candidate.  The 


34 


University  of  Oklahoma 

rivalry  between  the  other  two  candidates  was  so  great  that 
their  supporters  naturally  voted  for  the  joke  as  second  choice; 
they  had  to  in  fact,  to  prevent  the  election  of  the  rival  they  op¬ 
posed.  Of  course  the  chronic  candidate  was  nominated  by  a 
laree  majority.  Under  the  preferential  ballot  system  such  occur¬ 
rences  would  be  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 

28.  The  affirmative  do  not  seem  to  be  aware  of  or  to  realize 
the  seriousness  of  the  situation  which  would  result  from  any 
doubt  or  uncertainty  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  count  of  a  vote. 
It  could  not  be  expected  that  any  one  would  accept  or  abide  by 
the  result  unless  he  were  sure  it  was  true  and  correct.  To  do  so 
would  be  treasonable  indifference  to  public  duty.  It  is  inevit¬ 
able  that  charges  of  fraud  would  be  made  under  such  conditions, 
dissatisfaction  and  strife  would  result,  and  possibly  even  war. 
The  affirmative  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  acquiescence  in  a  vote 
is  absolutely  impossible  unless  the  people  are  satisfied  that  the 
vote  was  actually  cast  as  counted  and  reported.  We  cannot  af¬ 
ford  to  introduce  the  least  uncertainty  here;  and  that  the  pro¬ 
posed  preferential  ballot  system  undoubtedly  does. 

29.  When  voters  are  uncertain  as  to  the  correctness  of  the 
count  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  acquiesce  quietly  in  an 
adverse  vote.  It  is  hard  enough  to  submit  to  the  election  of  a 
bad  man  when  we  are  sure  that  a  majority  of  the  voters  wished 
him;  but  when  we  feel  that  his  election  is  due  to  a  method  of 
counting  the  vote  which  no  ordinary  man  understands  and  can 
demonstrate  it  may  often  be  that  acquiescence  and  submission 
are  not  a  duty  at  all.  People  will  not  and  ought  not  to  submit 
to  be  governed  by  laws  when  they  are  not  assured  of  their 
legality.  The  refusal  to  do  so  has  always  been  characteristic 
of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  A  method  which  introduces  any  un¬ 
certainty  as  to  the  result  of  an  election  is  not  to  be  even  con¬ 
sidered.  It  is  a  stab  at  the  vitals  of  free  government. 

30.  While  we  are  considering  the  theoretical  advantages  of 
a  proposal  we  must  also  consider  what  use  may  be  made  of  it 
by  the  enemies  of  society  and  good  government.  A  law  might 
have  many  good  points  and  yet  the  enemies  of  good  govern¬ 
ment  might  make  more  effective  use  of  it  than  the  friends  of 
good  goverhirlerif  could.  A  clause  Was  put  in  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  protect  negroes,  but  i’t  has  proved'  'the1  greatest 
bulwark  of  the  special  interests,  who  have  invoked  the  “due 
process  of  law’*  provision  infinitely  more  than  the  negrd'es'  haVe. 
And  when  “due  prbcess”  is  made  to  include  indefinite  appeals 
with  their  cost's  and' delays,  negroes  and  all1  other  poor  are  de- 


Preferential  Ballot 

prived  of  the  very  protection  the  law  finearlt  to  ifive.  'Ar9f  y&P, 
any  one  who  opposed  that  amendment  Wohl'd  Wuhtle'ss  dia^fe 
been  denounced  as  an  enemy  of  the  poor. 

31.  One  of  the  chief  objections  to  the  Bucklin  system  is' that 
each  choice  is  nullified  by  the  succeeding-  choices; — that  is,  the 
first  choice  is  nullified  by  the  second,  and  both  tffe1  first  and 
second  by  the  "third  choice.  Since  it  is  very  seldom  that  thfe 
first  choice  is  elected,  it  is -very  evident  that  the  important  choice 
is  not  the  first  but  the  second  or  third.  But  the  attempts  to 
mass  the  vote  on  the  second  or  third  choices  would  require  such 
strategy  that  ^the  “manipulator”  or  “fixer”  would  be  far  more 
potent  than  under  our  present  system.  It  is  certainly  no  im¬ 
provement  to  compel  a  voter  to  undo  with  his  ‘  second  choice 
what  he  does  with  his  first  choice.  It  may  often  be  but  an  in¬ 
genious  way  of  annulling  his  vote  entirely.  At  most  he  would 
have  but  one  vote  left  unannulled,  and  that  is  what  he  has  now. 
The  preferential  ballot  is  an  ingenious  illusion. 

32.  The  objections  to  the  Nanson  system  are  many  and 
serious.  In  the  first  place  the  method  of  counting  is  so  compli¬ 
cated  that  not  one  man  in  a  thousand  will  ever  be  able  to  under¬ 
stand  it,  and  he  could  not  explain  it.  There  is  little  likelihood 
that  the  people  will  ever  entrust  their  political  fortunes  to  such 
a  method.  Another  objection  is  that  the  vote  cannot  be  counted 
by  the  local  judges  where  it  is  cast,  but  must  be  transcribed  and 
sent  to  the  state  canvassing  board.  This  will  offer  means  of 
tampering  and  manipulation  such  as  have  never  been  dreamed 
of.  And  if  the  vote  is  finally  counted  wrong  its  detection  would 
be  impossible.  It  is  inconceivable  that  a  free  people  would  ever 
submit  to  such  a  law,  even  if  they  could  be  induced  to  establish 
it.  It  is  just  as  important  in  a  democracy  that  the  people 
should  know  there  is  no  fraud  as  it  is  that  there  be  none. 

33.  The  hours  following  an  election  while  the  results  are 
being  determined  is  the  most  critical  time  in  the  life  of  a  free 
government.  Not  only  are  the  personal  fortunes  of  the  candi¬ 
dates  at  stake,  but  the  dominance  of  parties  and  the  destiny  of 
the  nation  are  also  involved.  Everything  depends  on  the  ac¬ 
quiescence  of  the  people  in  the  result.  Anything  that  delays 
such  acquiescence  prolongs  the  crisis  and  increases  the  danger. 
Those  who  can  remember  the  terrific  strain  of  the  presidential 
election  of  1876  when  the  result  was  in  doubt  for  several  weeks 
will  never  wish  to  see.  such  conditions  repeated  or  vote  for  any 
policy  which  will  make  them  frequent.  The  supreme  question 
concerning  every  electoral  method  is  not  how  well  it  figures 


36  University  of  Oklahoma 

out  to  suit  the  theorists  or  mathematicians,  but  how  well  it 
operates  to  prevent  such  crises,  or  times  of  public  uncertainty 
and  stress. 

34.  In  the  United  States  we  have  carried  party  organization 
and  government  to  absurd  and  monstrous  extremes.  When  men 
will  vote  for  the  devil  on  their  own  party  ticket  in  preference  to 
a  saint  on  another  ticket  we  have  made  our  nation  a  paradise 
for  boodlers  and  political  bosses.  If  men  will  not  use  discrimi¬ 
nation  in  their  first  choice,  if  they  ignore  capacity  and  character 
when  they  vote,  then  we  may  be  sure  that  no  trick  of  balloting 
device,  or  complicated  mathematical  counting  can  deliver  us 
from  the  inevitable  result.  If  we  vote  for  bad  or  weak  or  in¬ 
competent  men  we  shall  have  unsatisfactory  officers,  and  no 
fine-spun  preferential  ballot  or  any  other  kind  of  ballot  is  going 
to  prevent  it.  No  system  of  counting  ballots  can  save  us  from 
the  consequences  of  our  folly.  A  far  easier  way  is  to  stop  the 
foolishness.  We  ought  not  to  encourage  voters  to  think  that 
they  can  carry  folly  and  treason  to  the  ballot  box  and  then  be 
saved  from  the  results  by  some  ingenious  way  of  counting. 

35.  The  most  conclusive  objection  to  the  so-called  preferen¬ 
tial  ballot  is  that  it  has  never  been  defined;  no  one  knows  what 
it  means.  If  it  were  adopted  nothing  would  be  established.  To 
one  advocate  it  means  the  Ware  system,  to  another  it  means  the 
Bucklin  system,  to  still  another  it  means  the  Nanson  system.  It 
is  very  common  to  hear  an  advocate  of  one  of  these  systems 
say  that  it  is  better  to  continue  the  present  system  than  to 
change  to  any  kind  of  a  preferential  system  except  the  one  he 
prefers.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  advocates  of  so-called 
preferential  voting  should  agree  among  themselves  as  to  just 
what  they  mean  by  it  before  they  ask  to  have  it  adopted.  If 
they  cannot  agree  among  themselves  why  in  the  name  of  com¬ 
mon  sense  should  they  seek  to  confuse  the  public  mind?  If 
those  who  believe  in  it  and  are  so  interested  in  it  cannot  define 
it,  how  on  earth  do  they  expect  the  rest  of  us  to  do  any  better 
when  they  care  nothing  about  it?  Do  they  wish  us  to  adopt  a 
method  of  voting  that  would  require  a  civil  war  to  get  counted? 

36.  The  lack  of  precise  definition  puts  the  negative  at  great 
disadvantage  in  arguing  against  it.  If  it  attacks  one  meaning, 
the  affirmative  can  shift  to  another  and  still  claim  that  it  is 
advocating  the  preferential  ballot.  If  the  negative  show  that  the 
Ware  system  would  normally  defeat  the  best  candidate,  they 
will  advocate  the  Bucklin  system.  When  it  is  shown  that  under 
it  second  choices  have  equal  weight  with  first  choices  and  may 


Preferential  Ballot  37 

annuli  them,  the  reply  is  ready  that  the  Nanson  system  does 
not  do  this.  When  it  is  objected  that  the  Nanson  system  is  so 
abstruse  that  no  ordinary  mortal  could  tell  whether  it  is  right 
or  not,  the  reply  is  that  the  Ware  and  Bucklin  systems  are  both 
very  simple.  It  is  the  present  system  against  the  field.  Its  sup¬ 
porter  finds  everybody  attacking  him  but  when  he  fights  back 
his  opponents  hide  behind  each  other.  He  supports  the  present 
system  because  he  sees  no  better,  for  these  three  methods  are 
not  a  system  but  confusion.  The  present  method  is  definite, 
simple,  concrete;  the  affirmative  have  no  case  till  their  proposal 
is  similarly  stated. 

37.  Under  both  the  Ware  and  the  Nanson  systems  the  votes 
cannot  be  counted  in  the  precincts  where  the  voting  is  done. 
The  final  votes  for  county  officers  must  be  counted  at  the  coun¬ 
ty  seat,  and  the  vote  for  all  offices  which  include  more  than  one 
county  must  be  canvassed  at  the  state  capital  or  elsewhere.  It 
would  be  weeks,  then,  before  the  result  could  be  known  in  many 
cases;  and  in  the  transportation  of  the  ballots  or  transcripts  of 
them  there  would  be  opportunities  for  tampering  far  beyond 
anything  now  known.  At  the  last  congressional  election  in  Ok¬ 
lahoma  there  were  three  candidates  to  be  elected  at  large  and 
forty-three  candidates.  This  would  require  forty  eliminations 
each  one  requiring  a  shifting  of  votes  caused  by  dropping  the 
name  with  the  lowest  number  of  votes.  Even  supposing  that 
the  counters  were  perfectly  and  phenomenally  honest  there  is 
no  human  probability  that  such  a  count  could  be  made  without 
many  errors.  And  even  if  the  count  were  entirely  correct  no 
one  would  believe  it.  Besides,  to  make  such  a  count  would  re¬ 
quire  an  army  of  clerks  for  months,  and  then  the  result  could 
not  be  accepted  with  confidence. 

38.  The  theory  of  the  preferential  ballot  is  contrary  to  the 
nature  of  things.  A  man  may  have  several  choices  for  a  wife, 
hut  there  is  no  way  that  he  can  get  them  all, — unless  he  is  a 
Mormon,  and  even  then  the  woman  has  a  say.  A  man  who  wants 
a  horse  may  have  several  choices,  but  he  has  to  decide  between 
them;  there  is  no  way  that  he  can  buy  one  and  partly  buy  the 
others.  A  woman  may  have  several  choices  for  a  husband,  but 
there  is  no  way  by  which  she  can  marry  one  and  partly  marry 
the  others.  She  cannot  marry  one  and  then  fall  back  on  the 
others  if  that  choice  should  fail.  In  the  nature  of  things  men 
must  stake  all  on  their  first  choice.  Even  if  the  results  are 
sometimes  tragical,  in  every  affair  of  life  we  must  make  our 
choice  and  abide  by  it.  The  same  is  true  in  voting:  an  elector 


38  University  of  Oklahoma 

may  have  several  choices  but  he  must  decide  between  them.  He 
must  consider  not  only  the  qualities  of  the  man  but  his  availa¬ 
bility,  his  popularity,  for  the  voter  throws  his  vote  away  who 
votes  for  a  man  for  whom  few  others  vote.  The  same  principles 
which  apply  to  everything  else  in  life  must  apply  to  voting;  they 
deceive  themselves  who  think  it  can  be  made  exceptional. 

39.  Every  vote  that  a  voter  casts  for  a  second  choice  helps 
to  defeat  his  first  choice,  unless  his  first  should  have  a  majority 
on  the  first  count.  To  vote  for  a  man  and  then  endeavor  to 
make  his  election  impossible  unless  he  was  also  the  first  choice 
of  the  majority  is  irrational.  It  follows  from  this  that  unless 
the  elector’s  first  choice  is  reasonably  cert-ain  of  a  majority,  a 
wise  elector  would  dissemble  on  his  first  choice  and  give  his 
really  first  preference  as  his  second  or  third  choice  instead  of  the 
first.  This  would  open  the  way  to  such  bargaining  and  schem¬ 
ing  and  trading  as  has  never  been  known  before.  Many  an  un¬ 
thinking  man  would  not  hesitate  to  exchange  his  second  for  an¬ 
other  man’s  first  choice.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  where  there 
were  a  good  many  candidates  there  would  be  little  significance 
in  the  first  choice,  for  every  man’s  second  choice  would  annul 
his  first  choice.  This  trading  of  choices  would  introduce  an  ele¬ 
ment  of  gambling,  and  the  possibilities  of  corruption  would  be 
boundless.  Furthermore,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  reach  it 
by  legislation.  A  law  to  prohibit  trading  certainly  could  not 
be  enforced;  where,  then,  would  the  present  condition  be  im¬ 
proved?  Nothing  could  prevent  the  second  or  third  choices 
from  being  of  more  importance  than  the  first  choice. 

40.  With  the  preferential  ballot  the  election  always  depends 
on  the  second  or  third  choices.  When  the  first  choices  settle  it 
the  second  choices  are  not  counted;  they  are  utterly  needless 
and  useless,  and  there  really  is  no  preferential  ballot.  It  fol¬ 
lows,  then,  that  when  we  have  the  preferential  ballot  it  is  the 
second  or  third  choices  which  elect  rather  than  the  first  choices. 
That  is  to  say,  our  elected  officers  would  all' be  second  choice 
men  instead  of  first  choice  men,  the  choicest  men  would  not  be 
elected.  The  harmless  good  fellow,  who  never  antagonizes  any 
body  or  anything,  who  stands  for  nothing  except  his  own  inter¬ 
ests,  who  conceals  his  convictions  if  he  has  any, — such  men 
would  receive  the  second  choice  vote  and  of  course  be  elected. 
The  men  with  positive  convictions  and  the  courage  to  stand  by 
them  would  disappear  from  public  life.  Political  expediency 
would  compel  men  to  straddle  as  much  as  possible,  and  would 
certainly  put  a  high  premium  on  such  a  policy.  Where  an  elec- 


Preferential  Ballot  39 

tion  is  determined  by  second  choices  a  man’s  chances  would 
depend  far  more  upon  the  weakness  of  the  opposition  to  him 
than  upon  the  ardency  of  the  support  of  his  friends.  But, 
furthermore,  these  amiable,  colorless  men  would  be  the  very 
type  who  would  be  selected  to  represent  private  interests;  men 
with  their  own  axes  to  grind  would  naturally  take  just  such  an 
attitude  towards  the  burning  questions  of  public  interest  and 
importance.  A  more  diabolically  insidious  scheme  to  beguile 
the  public  into  voting  down  the  men  who  are  the  leaders  in  the 
struggle  for  public  welfare  and  in  supporting  the  tools  of  private 
interests  could  hardly  be  devised. 

41.  Let  us  apply  the  preferential  ballot  to  actual  conditions 
as  they  are  in  Oklahoma  at  the  present  time.  Let  us  suppose 
the  preferential  ballot  to  be  in  effect  at  the  election  of  Novem¬ 
ber,  1914.  We  will  select  the  Bucklin  system  because  that  is 
claimed  to  be  by  far  the  best  form. 

Since  there  is  but  one  candidate  for  governor,  democratic 
voters,  for  example,  can  only  vote  for  a  democratic  candidate  as 
their  first  choice;  their  second  and  third  choices  must  be  cast 
for  a  candidate  of  some  other  party. 

The  result  does  not  depend  so  much  on  active  support  as  lack 
of  opposition.  The  candidates  of  the  smaller  parties  would  al¬ 
most  always  be  elected,  while  the  candidates  of  the  largest  party 
would  rarely  if  ever  be  elected — especially  if  there  were  any  ef¬ 
fort  to  combine  the  other  parties  against  it. 

It  is  evident  that  it  is  the  men  who  are  elected;  parties  are 
practically  eliminated.  Since  it  is  almost  impossible  for  any 
one  to  be  elected  on  the  first  count  and  since  no  one  can  vote 
for  his  party  candidate  except  in  the  first  choice  we  have  the 
amazing  result  that  no  candidate  is  elected  by  voters  of  his  own 
party. 

What  is  the  use  of  nominating  party  candidates  if  they  can 
only  be  elected  chiefly  by  the  votes  of  other  parties?  It  is  as¬ 
tonishing  that  sane  men  would  advocate  such  a  scheme,  for  it 
amounts  to  a  proposal  to  elect  candidates  by  their  opponents 
instead  of  by  their  supporters.  How  could  principles  or  re¬ 
forms  ever  triumph  under  such  a  plan?  Not  even  the  best  men 
could  be  elected,  for  if  a  democrat  had  to  vote  for  a  republican 
he  would  not  be  as  likely  to  vote  for  a  strong,  efficient  man  as 
for  a  weak  or  mediocre  one.  And  so  of  course  with  all  parties. 


40 


University  of  Oklahoma 

REBUTTAL  HINTS. 


1.  The  official  and  authoritative  counting  of  votes  is  not 
done  at  the  voting  precinct  under  our  present  system;  but  by 
county  and  state  election  boards  exactly  as  it  would  be  under 
the  preferential  system. 

2.  Our  voters  have  as  much  intelligence  as  they  have  in 
Australia,  where  the  most  difficult  form  of  the  preferential  bal¬ 
lot  is  in  actual  and  successful  operation,  and  where  they  do  not 
have  any  trouble  either  in  voting  or  counting  the  ballots. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  a  voter’s  second  choice  kills  his  first 
choice.  His  second  choice  is  not  counted* until  his  first  choice 
is  defeated.  If  the  voter  has  lost  his  first  choice,  the  preferen¬ 
tial  ballot  enables  him  still  to  have  some  influence  in  the  result. 

4.  That  the  methods  of  the  preferential  ballot  were  develop¬ 
ed  by  university  professors  instead  of  by  ward-heelers  and  ma¬ 
chine  bosses  should  not  make  it  less  desirable.  Most  people 
prefer  the  suggestions  originating  with  men  of  science  and  learn¬ 
ing  to  those  of  ignorant  and  selfish  schemers. 

5.  All  objections  are  summed  up  in  the  old  argument  of  the 
Aristocracy  and  the  Oligarchy, — the  people  are  not  capable  oi 
government  and  should  never  be  intrusted  with  anything  more 
than  the  empty  forms  of  government.  The  real  power  should 
be  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  aristocrats  and  the  intellectuals. 

6.  The  only  proper  argument  for  the  negative  is  to  show 
by  citing  actual  facts  and  experiences  where  the  preferential  bal¬ 
lot  has  worked  as  disastrously  as  they  say  it  will.  They  charge 
that  it  will  produce  certain  results  when  actual  experience  shows 
conclusively  that  it  prevents  the  results  which  they  profess  to 
fear. 

7.  Those  who  oppose  the  preferential  ballot  are  greatly 
distressed  about  the  difficulty  of  counting  the  ballots.  They 
never  cease  to  prophesy  of  the  dire  calamities  which  must  re¬ 
sult.  But  who  is  having  any  trouble  in  counting  the  ballots? 
The  system  is  in  use  in  a  score  of  places  and  there  has  never 
yet  been  a  particle  of  trouble.  - 

8.  Those  who  oppose  the  preferential  ballot  claim  that  it 
will  discourage  partisan  voting.  Suppose  it  does.  What  then? 
It  is  very  certain  that  it  will  in  the  same  degree  encourage  in¬ 
telligent  and  consciencious  voting,  voting  for  principles,  pa¬ 
triotic  voting.  A  voter’s  second  choice  candidate  is  always  one 
who  holds  the  same  principles  as  the  candidate  of  his  first  choice. 

9.  It  is  indeed  true  that  men  sometimes  stake  their  last  dol- 


Preferential  Ballot  41 

lar  on  one  horse  in  a  race,  and  it  may  be  that  some  choices  in 
life  are  irrevocable.  But  would  not  all  men  prefer  otherwise? 
Is  it  not  the  plain  part  of  wisdom  to  provide  ourselves  with 
alternative  courses  of  action  wherever  possible?  One  of  the 
best  arguments  in  favor  of  the  preferential  ballot  is  that  it  pro¬ 
vides  just  such  alternatives. 

10.  Why  should  the  fact  that  we  have  a  choice  of  three 
forms  be  counted  a  drawback?  It  is,  in  fact,  a  real  advantage. 
Conditions  are  not  the  same  in  all  states  and  in  all  countries. 
Each  is  at  liberty  to  choose  the  type  best  adapted  to  its  own 
peculiar  conditions.  No  one  advocates  adopting  more  than  one 
form  at  a  time,  and  the  poorest  type  has  proved  in  actual  prac¬ 
tice  infinitely  superior  to  the  present  system.  Objections  which 
have  weight  against  one  type  are  groundless  against  another. 

11.  No  casuistry  can  conceal  the  fact  that  the  negative  ad¬ 
vocates  election  by  a  minority,  and  is  unwilling  to  do  anything 
to  prevent  minority  elections.  The  affirmative  believe  in  ma¬ 
jority  elections,  and  will  not  consent  to  anything  short  of  ma¬ 
jority  elections  until  every  possible  effort  has  been  made  to  se¬ 
cure  such  elections.  The  present  system  will  always  enable  an 
organized  minority  to  defeat  the  will  of  the  unorganized  ma¬ 
jority.  If  that  is  not  advocating  bad  government  and  corrupt 
politics,  what  is  it? 

12.  Objection  is  raised  to  the  preferential  ballot  on  the 
alleged  ground  that  it  is  so  complicated  that  the  ordinary  voter 
cannot  vote  it  without  mistakes.  The  fact  is  that  it  has  never 
occasioned  any  trouble  in  this  respect  in  the  least.  The  first 
time  it  was  tried  in  Grand  Junction,  Colorado,  there  were  fewer 
errors  than  were  made  in  the  preceeding  election  under  the  pres¬ 
ent  system.  At  Spokane,  Washington,  at  the  first  election  held 
under  the  Preferential  system,  the  women  voted  for  the  first 
time,  yet  there  were  very  few  errors.  If  women  voting  for  the 
first  time  can  use  it  without  making  mistakes,  its  difficulties 
should  occasion  no  fear. 

13.  The  Negative  assumes  that  because  the  preferential  bal¬ 
lot  permits  2nd  and  3rd  choices  therefore  every  voter  would  be 
compelled  to  vote  them  whether  he  wished  to  or  not.  This  is 
utterly  absurd,  as  is  shown  by  the  Spokane  election,  where 
nearly  one-third  voted  for  but  one  choice,  exactly  as  they  would 
with  the  present  ballot.  The  Negative  also  assumes  that  with 
the  preferential  ballot  there  would  be  a  preferential  primary  in 
August  followed  by  the  final  election  in  November.  This  is  a 
mere  quibble.  A  final  election  after  nominations  had  been  made 


42 


University  of  Oklahoma 

by  a  primary  would  not  and  could  not  be  preferential  in  any  ac¬ 
cepted  sense.  The  application  of  “preferential”  to  such  an  elec¬ 
tion  is  utterly  unwarranted;  there  is  no  usage  whatever  to  sup¬ 
port  it.  Again,  the  question  does  not  demand  the  exclusive  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  preferential  ballot.  Adopting  it  for  primary  elections 
would  be  adopting  it.  But  the  preferential  ballot  renders  two 
elections  absolutely  unnecessary  and  contemplates  the  ultimate 
elimination  of  the  second  election. 


Preferential  Ballot  43 

Seledt  List  of  References  on 
PREFERENTIAL  VOTING  AND  THE 
TRANSFERRABLE  VOTE. 

Department  of  Bibliography,  Library  of  Congress. 

1.  Ashworth,  T.  R.  and  H.  P.  C.  Ashworth.  Proportional 

representation  applied  to  party  government;  a  new 
electoral  system.  London,  S.  Sonnenschein  &  Co., 
1901. 

“The  Hare  system  of  proportional  delegation.”  p.  141-161. 
“Preferential  voting.”  p.  173-176. 

2.  Avebury,  John  L.  Representation.  London,  S.  Sonnen¬ 

schein  &  Co.,  1890.  (The  imperial  parliament,  ed.  by 
Sydney  Buxton,  v.  2.)  Favors  the  single  transferable 
vote. 

3.  Bagehot,  Walter.  The  English  constitution,  and  other 

political  essays.  Latest  rev.  ed.  New  York,  D.  Apple- 
ton  &  Co.,  1877.  “The  scheme  of  Mr.  Hare.”  p.  216  ff. 

4.  Bailey,  Walter.  A  scheme  for  proportional  representa¬ 

tion.  London,  1869.  System  is  similar  to  the  Gove 
system. 

5.  Berry,  John  M.  Proportional  representation.  The  Gove 

system.  Worcester,  Mass.,  1892.  Gove  system:  p. 

24-32. 

6.  Bonnefoy,  Gaston.  La  representation  proportionelle. 

Paris,  Marchal  &  Billard,  1902. 

“Bibliographic:”  p.  684-701. 

“Le  vote  unique  transferrable  avec  liste  de  preference:” 
p.  103-110. 

7.  Bradford,  Ernest,  S.  Commission  government  in  Ameri¬ 

can  Cities.  New  York,  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1911.  359. 
(The  citizen’s  library  of  economics — politics  and  so- 
viology,  ed.  by  R.  T.  Ely). 

“Preferential  ballot:”  p.  258-261. 

“Preferential  ballot  provision  of  charter  of  Grand  Junc¬ 
tion,  Colorado:”  p.  307-311. 

8.  Brown,  William  Jethro.  The  new  democracy;  a  political 

study.  New  York,  Macmillan  and  Co.,  1899 
“The  Hare  system  with  special  reference  to  its  applica¬ 
tion  in  Tasmania:”  p.  32-67. 

9.  Cahn,  Ernst.  Das  Verhaltniswahl  system  in  den  mod- 

ernen  Kulturstaaten.  Berlin,  O.  Haring,  1909. 
“Verzeichnis  der  benutzen  Literatur.”  p.  361-369. 
“Einnamige  und  mahrnamige  Wahl  :”  p.  254-261. 

10.  Cambridge,  Mass.  Charters.  New  charter  for  the  city  of 

Cambridge.  Cambridge,  1911. 

Chapter  531,  laws,  1911. 

“Advantages  of  preferential  voting:”  p.  5-6.  Chapter  VII. 
Elections;  p.  16-20. 

11.  Commons,  John  R.  Proportional  representation.  2nd  ed. 

New  York,  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1907. 

“Preferential  voting:”  p.  100-105. 


44  University  of  Oklahoma 

12.  Cridge,  Alfred.  Hope  and  home.  San  Francisco,  1900. 

Favors  the  Hare  system  of  preferential  voting. 

13.  Dobbs,  Archibald  E.  General  representation,  or  a  com¬ 

plete  readjustment  and  modification  of  Mr.  Hare’s 
plan.  London,  1872. 

14.  Droop,  H.  R.  On  methods  of  electing  representatives. 

London,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  1868. 

Preferential. voting:  p.  9-32. 

15.  Dutcher,  Salem.  Minority  or  proportional  representation. 

New  York,  United  Spates  publishing  company,  1872. 
“The  preferential  vote:”  p.  110-136. 

16.  Eaton,  Dorman  B.  The  government  of  municipalities. 

New  York,  Pub.  for  the  Columbia  university  press  by 
the  Macmillan  company,  1899. 

“Preferential  voting:”  Chapter  IX. 

17.  Fawcett,  Henry.  Mr.  Hare’s  reform  bill,  simplified  and 

explained.  London,  1860. 

18.  _  Proportional  representation  and  Hare’s 

scheme  explained.  (In  Fawcett,  Henry,  and  M.  G. 
Fawcett,  eds.  Essays  and  lectures.  London,  1872.  p. 
336-368.) 

19.  Fisher,  J.  Francis.  Reform  in  our  municipal  elections. 

Philadelphia,  P.  Kildare,  1866. 

Opposed  to  the  Hare  systemi  of  preferential  voting. 

20.  Fleming,  Sir  Sandford.  An  appeal  to  the  Canadian  insti¬ 

tute  on  the  rectification  of  Parliament.  Toronto,  The 
Copp,  Clark  Co.,  1892. 

Discusses  Hare’s  system  of  preferential  voting. 

21.  Fontaine,  Jean.  La  representation  proportionnelle  en 

Wurtemberg.  Pari-s,  Societe  du  recueil  J.  B.  Sirey  & 
le  Journal  du  palais,  1909. 

“Le  systeme  du  quotient  et  de  la  liste  de  preference:”  p. 
33-38.  “Bibliographic:”  p.  213. 

22.  Forney,  Matthias  N.  Political  reform  by  the  representa¬ 

tion  of  minorities.  New  York,  The  author,  1894. 

“A  bibliography  of  minority,  proportional  or  personal 
representation,  cumulative  or  free  voting,  etc.”  p.  ISO- 
188. 

“The  principles  of  free  voting:”  p.  88-101.  See  also  chap¬ 
ters  VI,  X,  XI,  XIII,  appendix  C. 

23.  _ Proportional  representation;  a  means  for 

the  improvement  of  municipal  government.  New  York, 
E.  W.  Johnson,  1900. 

“Preferential  voting:”  p.  28-29. 

24.  Garner,  James  W.  Introduction  to  political  science.  New 

York,  American  Book  Company,  1910. 

“The  preferential  system:”  p.  464-466. 

25.  Goodnow,  Frank  J.  Municipal  problems.  New  York,  Pub. 

for  the  Columbia  University  Press,  The  Macmillan  Co., 
1897. 

“Preferential  voting:”  p.  156-160. 


Preferential  Ballot  45 

26.  Grand  Junction,  Colo.  Charters.  The  charter  of  the  city 

of  Grand  Junction.  Framed  by  the  charter  conven¬ 
tion,  Aug.  6,  1909.  To  be  voted  on  Sept.  14,  1909.  Grand 
Junction,  Colo.,  The  Progress  press,  1909. 

“The  preferential  system  of  voting  has  been  established, 
in  lieu  of  direct  primaries  or  of  direct  primaries  of  sec¬ 
ond  elections.”  . 

27.  Great  Brit.  Foreign  office.  Reports  from  His  Majesty’s 

representatives  in  foreign  countries  and  in  British  col¬ 
onies  respecting  the  application  of  the  principle  of  pro¬ 
portional  representation  to  the  public  elections.  Lon¬ 
don,  Printed  for  H.  M.  Stationery  off.,  by  Harrison  and 
sons,  1907.  Discusses  preferential  voting. 

28.  - Parliament.  House  of  lords.  Select  com¬ 

mittee  on  municipal  representation  bill.  Report  *  *  * 
on  municipal  representation  bill.  ( H.  L.)  London, 
Printed  for  H.  M.  Stationery  off.,  by  Wyman  and  sons, 
1907. 

“Clark-Hare  system  of  voting:”  p.  125-133.  “Hare  system 
of  election  in  Tasmania:”  p.  134-148.  “How  to  simpli¬ 
fy  the  ballot  by  the  Hare  system  to  those  who  cannot 
read  or  write.”  p.  149-154.  “The  single  transferable 
vote.”  p.  159-161. 

29.  _ Royal  commission  on  systems  of  election. 

Report.  London,  Printed  for  H.  M.  Stationery  office, 
by  Eyre  and  Spottiswoode,  1910. 

“The  commission  was  appointed  to  examine  schemes 
adopted  or  proposed  to  secure  a  fully  representative 
character  for  popularly  elected  legislative  bodies,  and 
to  consider  whether  they  are  capable  of  application  in 
Great  Britain.  In  the  section  on  proportional  repre¬ 
sentation  the  transferable  vote  is  discussed,  and  in  the 
following  sections  the  arguments  in  favor  and  against 
the  transferable  vote  are  given. 

30.  Hamilton,  John  J.  Government  by  commission.  3rd  ed. 

New  York  and  London,  Funk  &  Wagnalls  Co.,  1911. 
Preferential  voting  plan  of  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  p.  149- 
152. 

Preferential  voting  plan  of  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  com¬ 
pared  with  Des  Moines  double  election  plan.  p.  159- 
168. 

31.  Hare,  Thomas.  The  election  of  representatives,  parliamen¬ 

tary  and  municipal.  4th  ed.  London,  Longmans, 
Green,  Reader,  and  Dyer,  1873. 

Preferential  voting:  p.  140-142. 

32.  Hoskins,  James  T.  A  modification  of  Mr.  Hare’s  scheme 

for  the  election  of  representatives,  etc.  London,  1870. 

33.  Humphreys,  John  H.  Proportional  representation.  Lon¬ 

don,  Methuen  &  Co. 

“The  single  transferable  vote.”  p.  130-171;  343-356. 


46 


University  of  Oklahoma 


34.  -  Proportional  representation.  Report  on 

the  municipal  elections  held  at  Pretoria  and  Johannes¬ 
burg  on  27th  Oct.,  1909.  Pretoria,  The  government 
printing  and  Stationery  office,  1909. 

On  preferential  voting. 

35.  Ingram,  Thomas  D.  Representative  government.  West 

Chester,  Pa.,  F.  S.  Hickhan,  1884. 

“Preferential  voting.”  p.  8-25. 

36.  King,  Joseph.  Electoral  reform;  an  inquiry  into  our  sys¬ 

tem  of  parliamentary  representation.  London,  T.  F. 
Unwin,  1908. 

“Preferential  voting.”  p.  116-120. 

37.  Kloti,  Emil.  Die  Proportionalwahl  in  der  Schwiez.  Ges- 

chichte,  Darstellung  und  Kritik.  Bern,  Schmid  & 
Francke,  1901. 

“Litteratur.”  p.  472-478.  Separatabdruck  aus  der  “Zeit- 
schrift  fur  schweizerische  Statistik,  37  Jahrgang,  1901.” 
“Einmalige  ubertragbare  Stimmgebung.”  p.  8-18. 

38.  Lafitte,  Paul.  Le  paradoxe  de  l’egalite  et  La  representa¬ 

tion  proportionnelle.  Paris,  Hachette  et  cie.,  1910. 
“Le  quotient  electorial.”  p.  182-193. 

39.  Lubbock,  Sir  John.  Representation.  London,  S.  Sonnes- 

chein  &  Co.,  1890. 

“The  single  transferable  vote.”  p.  33-34,  44-50. 

40.  Luschka,  H.  Die  Verhaltniswahl  im  deutschen  Verwal- 

tungsrecht.  Karlsruhe  i.  B.  G.  Braun,  1905.  (Frei- 
burger  Ahhandlungen  aus  dem  Gebiete  des  offentlichen 
Rechts,  hrsg.  von  Woldemar  von  Rohland,  Heinrich 
Rosin,  Richard  Schmidt.  Heft  5.) 

“Die  einnamige  Wahl.”  p.  8-9. 

41.  Merriam,  Charles  E.  Primary  elections.  Chicago,  The 

University  of  Chicago  press,  1908. 

Bibliography,  p.  289-295.  Preferential  vote:  p.  79. 

42.  Mill,  John  S.  Considerations  of  representative  govern- 

.b  ment.  New  York,  1882. 


Chapter  VII  is  an  enthusiastic  argument  for  the  Hare 
system. 

43.  _ _ _ T  Considerations  on  representative  govern¬ 

ment.  New  York,  E.  P.  Dutton  and  Co.,  1905.  The 
universal  library. 

Preferential  voting,  p.  125-154. 

44.  _ _ _ i _ Personal  representation.  Speech  in  the 

House  of  Commons, :  May  29,  1867;  2nd  ed.  London, 
Printed  by  Henderson,  Rait  and  Fenton,  1867. 

In  favor  of  Hare’s  ele&tbrM1  system. 

45.  Moore,  Thomas.  The  representation  of  the  people;  a  pfea 

for  free  voting  by  the  method  of  Mr.  Hare.  London, 
Hauley,  1879. 

46.  Nicholls,  Charles  F.  Democracy  and  representation.  A 

review  of  Mr.  Harems  treatise  on  “Election  of  represen¬ 
tatives.”  Melbourne,  Evans,  1871. 


Preferential  Ballot  47 

47.  Ostrogorskii,  Nposei  IA.  Democracy  and  the  party  sys¬ 
tem  in  the  United  States.  New  York,  The  Macmillan 
Co.,  1910. 

“Preferential  vote:”  p.  484-487. 

49.  Racioppi,  C.  F.  The  D’Hondt  system  and  the  single 

transferable  vote.  Florence,  1885. 

50.  Reform  league,  London.  Representative  reform.  Report 

of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  conference  of  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Reform  league  and  others,  on  Mr.  Hare’s 
scheme  of  representation,  held  28th  Feb.  and  7th  and 
21st  March,  1863.  London,  Trubner  &  Co. 

51.  Proportional  representation  society.  The  model  election 

of  1908.  London,  1908.  Pamphlet  No.  10. 

Reprinted  (with  some  modifications)  from  the  December 
issue  of  Representation.  Explanations  of  the  system 
of  the  single  transferable  vote. 

■52.  _ Rules  for  the  conduct  of  elections  on  the 

system  of  the  single  transferable  vote,  with  introduc¬ 
tory  remarks  and  the  example  of  an  imaginary  elec¬ 
tion.  London,  1908.  (P.  R.  society.  Pamphlet  No.  11.) 

53.  Remsen,  Daniel  S.  Primary  elections.  New  York,  G.  P 

Putnam’s  sons,  1894.  (Questions  of  the  day  77) 
Chapter  XVIII.  Voting  (Preferential). 

54.  Saripolos,  Nicholas.  La  democratic  et  l’election  propor- 

tionnelle.  Paris,  A.  Rousseau,  1899.  2v. 

“Le  vote  unique  transferable,  evec  liste  de  preference.” 
p.  315-329. 

“Le  vote  unique  sans  transfert.”  p.  296-313. 

55.  Smith,  James  R.  Personal  representation.  A  defense  of 

Mr.  Hare’s  scheme  of  electoral  reform.  London,  1868. 

56.  Societe  ,pour  l’etude  de  la  representation  proportionnelle, 

Paris.  La  representation  proportionnelle;  etudes  de 
legislation  et  de  statistique  comparees.  Paris,  F.  Pi- 
chon,  1888. 

57.  Sterne,  Simon.  On  representative  government  and  per¬ 

sonal  representation.  Philadelphia,  J.  B.  Lippincott  & 
Co.,  1871. 

“An  able  presentation  of  the  Hare  system,  simplified  and 
adapted  to  American  institutions.” 

58.  Stockton,  Lewis.  Preferential  voting. 

(In  municipal  league.  (National).  Proceedings,  Buffalo, 
N.  Y.,  1910.) 

59.  Tuckerman,  L.  B.  Election  by  preponderance  of  choice. 
In  Forney,  N.  N.,  ed.  Political  reform  by  the  representa¬ 
tion  of  minorities.  New  York,  1894.  p.  1 75-1 79. )_ 

Reprinted  from  Proportional  representation  review,  Sept. 
1893,  v.  1.  p.  30-33. 

60.  Tyson,  Robert.  Preferential  voting. 

(In  Beard.,  Charles  A. ed.  Loose  leaf  digest  of  short  bal¬ 
lot  charters.  New  York,  1911.  p.  21301-21304). 


48  University  of  Oklahoma 

61.  - -  Proportional  representation  through  the 


single  transferable  vote.  (In  Beard,  Charles  A.  el. 
Loose  leaf  digest  of  short  ballot  charters.  New  York, 
1911.  p.  21501-21502.) 

62.  Washington  (State)  Laws,  statutes,  etc.  Primary  elec¬ 

tion  law  of  Washington,  approved  Mar.  15,  1907. 
Olympia,  Wash.,  C.  W.  Gorham,  1907. 

Preferential  voting,  p.  ,174-175. 

63.  Villey-Desmeserets,  Edmond  L.  Legislation  electorale 

comparee  des  principaux  pays  d’Europe.  Paris,  A. 
’Larose,  1900. 

“Systeme  du  quotient  ou  systeme  de  Hare.”  p.  134-136. 

64.  Western  Australia.  Electoral  dept.  First  report.  1908. 

Simpson,  1909. 

Introduction  of  preferential  voting  system,  p.  13. 

65.  _ Parliament.  Parliamentary  debates.  Leg¬ 

islative  council  and  Legislative  assembly.  1910-1911. 
Perth,  F.  W.  Simpson,  1911.  LXXVI,  2513-3 773. 

For  preferential  voting  see  index  Electoral  act  amend,  bill. 
65.  Woodruff,  Clinton  R.,  ed.  City  government  by  commis¬ 
sion.  New  York,  D.  Appleton  and  Co.,  1911.  (Nation¬ 
al  municipal  league  series,  v.  1). 

Preferential  vote.  p.  35-37. 


ARTICLES  IN  PERIODICALS. 

67.  Hare,  Thomas.  Representation  in  practice  and  in  theory. 

Fraser’s  magazine,  Feb.  1860,  v.  61.  p.  188-204. 

68.  Hare,  Thomas.  Representation  of  every  locality  and  in¬ 

telligence.  Fraser’s  magazine,  April,  1860,  v.  61,  p. 
527-543. 

69.  Hare,  Thomas.  Suggestions  for  the  improvement  of  our 

representative  system.  Macmillan’s  magazine,  Feb. 
1862,  v.  5.  p.  295-301. 

70.  Trevelyan,  G.  O.  A  few  remarks  on  Mr.  Hare’s  scheme 

of  representation.  Macmillan’s  magazine,  April,  1862, 
v.  5,  p.  480-486. 

71.  Mill,  John  S.  Considerations  on  representative  govern¬ 

ment.  North  American  Review,  July,  1862,  v.  95,  p. 
228-255. 

Preferential  voting,  p.  240-242. 

72.  “Personal  representation.”  A  review  of  Hare’s  Election 

of  representatives.  Westminster  review,  Oct.  1865,  v. 
84,  p.  305-326. 

73.  Kinnear,  J.  Boyd.  Practical  considerations  on  the  repre¬ 

sentation  of  minorities.  Fortnightly  review,  Feb.  15, 
1866,  v.  4,  p.  49-64. 

74.  Hare,  Thomas.  Individual  responsibility  in  representa¬ 

tive  government.  Fortnightly  review,  Mar.  15,  1866. 
v.  4,  p.  350-358. 

75.  Hare,  Thomas.  The  tyranny  of  the  majority.  North 

American  review,  Jan.  1867,  v.  104,  p.  205-230. 


Preferential  Ballot  49 

76.  Proportional  representation.  Putnam's  magazine,  June, 

1870,  v.  5,  p.  711-720. 

Preferential  voting,  p.  716-717. 

77.  Ware,  William  R.  Application  of  Mr.  Hare’s  system  of 

voting  to  the  namination  of  overseers  of  Harvard  col¬ 
lege.  American  social  science  association.  Journal, 

1871,  v.  3,  p.  185-191. 

78.  Hare,  Thomas.  Minority  representation  in  Europe. 

Ameican  social  science  association.  Journal,  1871,  v. 
3,  p.  192-198. 

79.  Fawcett,  Millicent  G.  A  short  explanation  of  Mr.  Hare’s 

scheme  of  representation.  Macmillan’s  magazine, 
April,  1871,  v.  23,  p.  487. 

80.  Stanwood,  Edward.  Forms  of  minority  representation. 

North  American  review,  July,  1871,  v.  113,  p.  1-29. 

Hare  system  of  voting,  p.  18-29. 

81.  Mason,  Alfred  B.  A  new  theory  of  minority  representa¬ 

tion.  New  Englander,  July,  1874,  v.  33,  p.  573-582. 
Hare  Scheme,  p.  578-579. 

82.  Hare,  Thomas.  A  note  on  representative  government. 

Fortnightly  review,  July,  1875,  v.  24,  p.  102-107. 

83.  Smith,  J.  Parker.  Parliamentary  reform;  minority  repre¬ 

sentation.  Westminster  review,  Jan.  1884,  v.  63,  p. 
163-175. 

Discusses  preferential  voting. 

84.  Representation  and  misrepresentation.  Westminster  re¬ 

view,  April  1884,  v.  65,  p.  392-420. 

Single  transferable  vote.  p.  408-413. 

85.  Lefevre,  G.  Shaw.  The  representation  of  minorities.  Con¬ 

temporary  reviewKMay,  1884,  v.  45,  p.  714-733. 
Preferential  voting,  p.  719-720. 

86.  Grey,  Albert.  Proportional  versus  majority  representa¬ 

tion.  Nineteenth  Century,  Dec.  1884,  v.  16,  p.  935-964. 
Preferential  voting,  p.  959-964. 

87.  Lefevre,  G.  Shaw,  and  Thomas  Hare.  Representation  and 

misrepresentation.  Fortnightly  review,  Feb.  1,  1885, 
_  v.  43,  p.  202-222. 

Discusses  the  Hare  system  of  preferential  voting. 

88.  Proportional  representation:  objections  and  answers.  Sir 

John  Lubbeck.  Leonard  Courtney,  Albert  Grey,  and 
John  Westlake.  Nineteenth  century,  Feb.  1885,  v.  17, 
>  p.  312-320. 

Discusses  the  Hare  system  of  voting. 

89.  Hagenbach-Bischoll.  Le  probleme  de  la  repartition  pro- 

portionnelle.  Representation  proportionnelle,  Sept. 
1887,  v.  6,  p.  184-193. 

90.  Commons,  John  R.  A  new  plan  for  minority  representa¬ 

tion.  American  review  of  reviews,  Nov,  1891,  v.  4,  p. 

410-412. 


University  of  Oklahoma 


91.  Berbatzik,  Dr.  Das  system  der  proportionalwahl.  Jahr- 

buch  fur  GesetzgeDung,  Verwaltung  und  Volkswurts- 
chaft,  1893,  v.  17,  p.  393-426. 

Discusses  the  Hare  and  Andrae  system  of  preferential 
voting. 

92.  Woeste.  Les  suffrages  de  preference.  Representation 

proportionnelle,  Jan.-Feb.,  1893,  v.  12,  p.  9-13. 

93.  Cracken,  W.  D.  Proportional  representation.  Arena,  Feb. 

1893,  v.  7,  p.  290-297. 

Preferential  vote.  p.  294. 

94.  Spence,  Catherine  H.  Effective  voting.  Proportional 

representation  review,  Sept.  1893,  v.  1,  p.  15-20. 

95.  Gove,  William  H.  The  Gove  system.  Proportional  rep¬ 

resentation  review.  Sept.,  1893,  v.  1,  p.  20-23. 

96.  Gfeller,  Jules,  and  Bischoff,  H.  Une  nouveau  systeme  de 

repartition.  Representation  proportionnelle,  Nov.  1893, 
v.  12,  p.  291-295. 

97.  Spence,  Catherine  H.  Effective  voting  the  only  effective 

moralizer  of  politics.  Arena,  Nov.  1894,  v.  10,  p.  767- 
776. 


98.  Spence,  Catherine  H.  The  transferable  vote.  Proportion¬ 

al  representation  review,  June,  1894,  v.  1,  p.  108-115. 

99.  Ward,  John  H.  Large  election  districts  necessary  to  give 

freedom  to  voters.  Proportional  representation  re¬ 
view,.  Dec.  1894,  v.  2,  p.  55-61. 

100.  Gove,  William  H.  The  relation  of  the  Gove  system  to 

other  methods  of  proportional  representation.  Pro¬ 
portional  representation  review,  Dec.  1894,  v.  2,  p.  41-47. 

101.  Cridge,  Alfred.  The  Hare  preferential  plan.  Proportion¬ 

al  representation  review,  Mar.  1895,  v.  2,  p.  81-84. 

102.  Williams,  Henry  P.  A  suggested  modification  of  the  Hare 

system.  Proportional  representaion  review,  Mar.  1896, 
v.  3,  p.  49-54. 

103.  Tyson,  Robert.  Needed  political  reforms.  Proportional 

representation;  its  principles  and  progress;  with  de¬ 
scriptions  of  the  Swiss  free  list,  the  Hare-Spence  plan 
and  the  Gove  system.  Direct  legislation  record,  Nov. 
1900,  v.  7,  p.  105-116. 

104.  _  Needed  political  reforms.  Proportional 

representation,  or  effective  voting.  Arena,  Dec.  1902, 
v.  28,  p.  610-617. 

105.  (Allan,  P.  L.)  The  Colorado  ballot  and  others.  Nation, 

Feb.  2,  1905,  v.  80,  p.  84-85. 

106.  Tyson,  Robert.  The  Belgium  system  of  proportional  rep¬ 

resentation.  Arena,  Dec.  1903,  v.  30,  p.  591-597. 

107.  _ The  electoral  wisdom  of  Japan.  Arena, 

Sept.  1904,  v.  32,  p.  269-371. 

108.  _ The  single  vote  in  plural  elections.  Arena, 

Oct.  1904,  v.  32,  p.  403-406. 

109.  _  A  primer  of  direct  legislation.  Propor¬ 

tional  representation.  Arena,  July,  1906,  v.  36,  p.  46-49. 
“The  Hare  or  Hare-Spence  system.”  p.  48-49. 


Preferential  Ballot 

110.  - A  primer  of  direct  legislation.  The  abso¬ 

lute  majority  method,  Arena,  July,  1906,  v.  36,  p.  49-52. 
In  favor  of  preferential  voting. 

111.  Ruppenthal,  J.  C.  Election  reforms,  the  trend  toward 

democracy.  American  academy  of  political  and  social 
science.  Annals,  Nov.  1906,  v.  28,  p.  410-441. 

112.  Lush,  Charles  K.  Primary  elections  and  majority  nomi¬ 

nations.  American  political  science  review,  Nov.  1907, 
v.  2,  p.  43-47. 

113.  Tyson,  Robert.  Various  voting  systems.  Arena,  Jan. 

1908,  v.  39,  p.  59-64. 

114.  Preferential  voting  in  West  Australia.  Equity  series, 

July,  1908,  v.  10,  p.  90-91. 

115.  Humphreys.  John  H.  Preferential  voting  in  Johannes¬ 

burg  and  Pretoria  under  the  Municipal  elections  act  of 

1909.  Pacific  municipalities,  July,  1910,  v.  22,  p.  213-217. 
“Extract  from  the  report  to  the  Colonial  secretary  on 

the  first  practical  application  of  the  system  of  propor¬ 
tional  representation  in  South  Africa,  based  on  the  re¬ 
sult  of  the  municipal  election  held  in  Pretoria  and 
Johannesburg,  Oct.  27,  1909.” 

116.  The  Scottish  model  election.  Proportional  representation 

society.  Journal,  Nov.  1910,  No.  19,  p.  93-105. 

117.  Kilpin,  Ralph.  The  South  African  elections.  1910.  Pro¬ 

portional  representation  society.  Journal,  Nov.  1910, 
No.  19,  p.  111-113. 

118.  Lachapelle,  Georges.  L’application  de  la  representation 

proportionnelle.  Revue  politique  et  parlementaire, 
Dec.  10.  1910,  v.  66,  p.  466-485. 

Discusses  preferential  voting. 

119.  Lester,  C.  B.  Notes  on  current  legislation.  Electoral 

systems.  British  royal  commission.  American  politi¬ 
cal  science  review,  May,  1911,  v.  5,  p.  239-245. 

Discusses  the  preferential  system  of  voting. 

120.  Henderson,  Gerard  C.  Preferential  voting  in  Spokane. 

Twentieth  Century  magazine,  June,  1911,  v.  4,  p.  262-264. 

122.  Lowrie,  S.  G.  Second  choice  nomination  laws.  American 

political  science  review,  Nov.  1911,  v.  5,  p.  600-604. 

123.  1912.  Preferential  elections  in  Australia.  Equity  series, 

Jan.  1912,  v.  14,  p.  45-46. 


ADDITIONAL. 

124.  Effective  Voting,  C.  G.  Hoag.  (Printed  as  Senate  Doc. 

No.  359,  63d  Congress,  2d  session.  Contains  4  very  full 
exposition  of  what  the  Preferential  System  of  voting 
contemplates.) 

125.  Equity  Series,  Jan.,  Feb.,  April,  July,  1913. 

126.  Direct  Primaries  and  the  Preferential  Method,  by  K.  A. 

Bickel,  in  Review  of  Reviews,  Nov.,  1913. 

127.  Lewis  Jerome  Johnson.  Preferential  Voting.  Furnished 

by  the  author  at  5c.  Harvard  University,  Cambridge, 
Mass. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION 


DEPARTMENTS. 

I.  PUBLIC  DISCUSSION  AND  DEBATE. 

Aids  in  the  organization  and  procedure  of  Debating  Clubs. 
Aids  debaters  in  getting  and  organizing  material  for  debate. 
Aids  in  the  public  discussion  of  important  questions  and  dis¬ 
semination  of  information 'concerning  them. 

II.  CORRESPONDENCE-STUDY. 

Gives  by  Correspondence  all  the  subjects  required  for  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  different  colleges  of  the  University  of  Oklahoma;  all 
the  subjects  required  for  state  teachers’  certificates;  and  enables 
a  student  temporarily  absent  from  the  University  to  keep  up 
with  his  class. 

III.  PUBLIC  INFORMATION  AND  WELFARE. 

Gives  information  on  all  subjects  in  reply  to  inquiries,  as¬ 
sists  all  organizations  for  public  welfare.  It  has  issued  a  bulle¬ 
tin  on  Municipal  Affairs,  and  collected  a  Municipal  Traveling 
Library  of  150  volumes  divided  into  collections  of  ten  volumes 
each,  which  are  loaned  free  of  charge  to  all  interested.  Also  a 
Rural  Traveling  Library  of  360  volumes  divided  into  groups  oi 
twelve  each.  Distributed  especially  through  County  Superin¬ 
tendents,  Rural  Schools,  Farmers,  Clubs,  etc. 

IV.  EXTENSION  LECTURES. 

Offers  over  two  hundred  lectures  on  a  great  variety  of  sub¬ 
jects.  These  are  given  free  except  the  traveling  expenses  of  the 
lecturer.  These  lectures  are  from  every  school  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity.  Lecturers  will  respond  to  every  call  as  far  as  duties  to 
classes  will  permit. 

V.  EXTENSION  CLASSES. 

As  far  as  funds  and  circumstances  permit;  freshman  classes 
will  be  formed  whenever  there  is  sufficient  patronage  to  justify 
it.  By  this  means  students  may  live  at  their  homes  and  do  regu¬ 
lar  work  in  the  University  class. 

VI.  HIGH  SCHOOL  DEBATING. 

Aids  the  state  high  school  debating  league  by  preparing  bulle¬ 
tins,  etc.  Cooperates  with  Department  I  and  with  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Public  Speaking  of  the  University. 


J.  W.  SCROGGS,  A.  C.  SCOTT, 

Director  Depts.  I,  II,  III.  Director  Depts.  IV,  V,  VI. 

EDMUND  BERRIGAN,  Assistant. 


The  University  of  Oklahoma 

Comprises  the  following  Schools  and  Colleges: 


The  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences 

The  School  of  Commerce  and  Industry 

The  School  of  Education 

The  School  of  Journalism 

The  School  of  Fine  Arts 

The  School  of  Medicine 

The  Training  School  for  Nurses 

The  School  of  Law 

The  School  of  Pharmacy 

The  College  of  Engineering  including: 

The  School  of  Civil  Engineering 
The  School  of  Chemical  Engineering 
The  School  of  Electrical  Engineering 
The  School  of  Mechanical  Engineering 
The  School  of  Mining  Geology 
The  Graduate  School 
The  Summer  Session 
The  Extension  Division 


Tuition  free.  Enrollment  last  year,  1,377. 

Faculty  numbers  130. 

Degrees  offered:  M.  A.,  B.  A.,  B.  S.,  LL.  B.,  M.  D.,  B.  M., 
E.  E.,  M.  E.,  C.  E.,  Ph.  C.,  Ph.  G. 

For  further  information  about  any  department  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity’s  work  address: 

ERRETT  R.  NEWBY, 

Secretary,  University  of  Oklahoma, 

Norman,  Oklahoma. 


DEBATE  BULLETINS 


These  are  collections  of  facts  and  arguments  on 

both  sides  of  public  questions.  While  efforts  are 

made  to  secure  accuracy  in  statements  of  facts,  none 

0 

is  made  to  test  the  soundness  of  arguments;  they 
are  simply  arguments  which  are  used.  The  debater 
needs  the  discipline  of  testing  them  himself.  A  brief 
description  of  these  bulletins  is  given  below : 


Number  12.  A  Students’  Manual  of  Debating  and  Par¬ 
liamentary  Practice.  This  is  a  reprint  with  a  few  changes 
of  three  bulletins  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin.  It  con¬ 
tains,  (1)  Suggestions  for  organization,  with  a  Model  Con¬ 
stitution;  (2)  A  brief  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice; 
(3)  a  brief  Manual  of  Argumentation;  (4)  Instructions  to 
Judges. 

Number  13.  The  Initiative  and  Referendum.  Giving- 
several  articles  and  digests  of  a  number  of  others. 

Number  15.  Unicameral  Legislatures.  72  pages.  Same 
plan. 

Number  16.  Guaranty  of  Bank  Deposits.  80  pages. 

Number  17.  Woman’s  Suffrage.  80  pages. 


Number  18.  Consolidation  of  Rural  Schools.  32  pages. 
Number  20.  The  Preferential  Ballot.  56  pages. 

Number  21.  Government  Ownership  of  Railways. 


These  bulletins  are  furnished  free  to  any  citizen 
of  the  state  except  Number  12,  The  Students'  Manu¬ 
al  ;  for  this  we  have  to  charge  10c.  It  is  now  sold  by 
a  publisher  in  Minneapolis  at  35c.  It  was  written 
by  Prof.  R.  L.  Lyman  of  the  University  of  Wiscon¬ 
sin  and  is  a  valuable  text-book,  and  cheap  enough 
for  every  debater  to  have  one. 

It  is  desirable  that  each  debating  club  should  have 
more  than  one  copy  of  each  bulletin,  at  least  one  for 
each  debater.  We  will  send  whatever  number  will 
be  actually  used.  Address  all  requests  to 


UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  DIVISION, 
Dept,  of  Public  Discussion  and  Debate, 
Norman,  Oklahoma, 


The  University  Bulletin  has  been  established  by  the  university. 
The  reasons  that  have  led  to  such  a  step  are:  first,  to  provide  a  means 
to  set  before  the  people  of  Oklahoma,  from  time  to  time,  information 
about  the  work  of  the  different  departments  of  the  university:  and. 
second,  to  provide  a  way  for  the  publishing  of  departmental  reports 
papers,  theses,  and  such  other  matter  as  the  university  believes 
would  be  helpful  to  the  cause  of  education  in  our  state.  The  Bulletin 
will  be  sent  post  free  to  all  who  apply  for  it.  The  university  desires 
especially  to  exchange  with  other  schools  and  colleges  for  similar 
publications. 

Communications  should  be  addressed: 

THE  UNIVERSITY  BULLETIN 
University  Hall, 

Norman,  Oklahoma. 


Oklahoma  Univimity  Pr&m. 


